Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
18 October 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
18, 28, 31
John Lyndon James
Fadulla Limited
Sections 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 3(1)(d); 3(6) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(1)(b): - Opposition failed.

Section 3(1)(c): - Opposition failed.

Section 3(1)(d): - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • The manner of representation of the words (essentially forming a ball or circle) possessed &quot:the minimum degree of distinctiveness required&quot: to defeat attack under Section 3(1)(b).


The opponents had applied for registration of their mark OUR PET some years earlier but had been refused by the Registry as the mark was judged to be non-distinctive. On that basis they contended that the application in suit should be rejected also. The Hearing Officer, however, applying the guidance of the later BABY DRY decisions, and noting also the degree of stylisation in the mark, found that it did not offend against the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) or 3(1)(d). Neither, he concluded, was it devoid of distinctive character such as to disqualify it under Section 3(1)(b). The opponents' case under Section 3(6) consisted merely of assertion and opinion and hence could not be sustained. Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer could not find, from the sales evidence, that the opponents had established a goodwill or reputation in the market place.

Full decision O/429/02 PDF document42Kb