Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
15 December 1999
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
P T Dipasena Citra Darmaja
Seafood Marketing International Plc
Sections: 3(6) & 5(4)(a)*(* other grounds under Sections 5(2) and 5(3) were cited but were not pursued, and were dismissed accordingly).


Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • Under Section 5(4)(a) the opponents must provide a prima facie case and supporting evidence even where the applicants have filed no evidence of their own.


The Hearing Officer dealt first with the matter under Section 5(4)(a). In this the opponents claimed a reputation in the mark TIGER BRAND, such that the mark applied for would cause deception or confusion. The Hearing Officer however considered that the evidence of use filed by the opponents was insufficient to establish their claim. Only two items, invoices, were exhibited in support of a claim to have sold £(pounds sterling)12m of goods under the brand in the relevant period, and references on these to PRAWNS TIGER may even have referred to actual items ie tiger prawns, said the Hearing Officer. The opponents had therefore failed to show the necessary goodwill or reputation, he decided, but in case he should be found wrong in this he went on to consider whether there would be misrepresentation. The marks, leaving aside the TIGER element (which was in any case descriptive of at least some of the goods specified) were BRAND and GOLDEN and those elements were likely to enable customers to distinguish between them, he decided. No evidence of likely damage was before him, and the Hearing Officer decided accordingly that the Section 5(4)(a) ground failed.

The Section 3(6) ground was not supported either by particularisation or evidence and this ground was dismissed also.

Full decision O/445/99 PDF document27Kb