Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
10 December 1999
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Peacocks Stores Ltd
Perfums Rochas
Section 5(2)(b), 5(3) and 5(4)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed. Goods not similar.

Section 5(3) - Opponents' claims not substantiated.

Section 5(4) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • This application is distinguished from the ETERNITY case 1997 RPC 155.


Opponents' opposition based on the registration of their mark FEMME in Class 3 and use of their mark in relation to such goods. Reputation claimed but evidence showed that mark was used with the housemark ROCHAS. FEMME is a French word meaning "woman" and the Hearing Officer considered it a relatively weak mark. Even so, he considered it to be similar to the applicants mark. However, as the goods are very different the opponents failed under Section 5(2)(b). Under Section 5(3) the opponents failed to establish by their evidence that they had a significant reputation in their mark FEMME (solus) or that registration of the applicants mark would impact upon the reputation of their mark.

The opponents had some very limited use of their mark on clothing but insufficient in itself to succeed under Section 5(4). Nor was the user in relation to Class 3 goods sufficient bearing in mind the nature of the respective marks. Opposition under this heading failed.

Full decision O/437/99 PDF document34Kb