Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
9 October 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr S P Rowan
Aberdin S.L.
C & J Clark International Ltd
Sections 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition partially successful.

Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • The opponents did not file their Section 3(6) evidence until the reply stage. This was criticised. Section 3(6) is a serious matter and should be dealt with in main evidence round.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of their K mark which they have used for over 100 years in relation to boots and shoes and in which they have an extensive registration. The applicants specification covered sports clothing, sports footwear and headgear and the Hearing Officer decided from the evidence that the opponents did not have a reputation for such goods.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue given the width of the opponents specifications and he concluded that the respective marks were confusingly similar in relation to sports footwear and headgear, bearing in mind the prominence of the letter K in the applicants mark. Also the evidence showed that the opponents used their K mark with other sub-brands and the Hearing Officer believed that the public might assume KELME was merely another sub-brand and thus associate the two undertakings.

Under Section 3(6) the main submission by the opponents was that they had an agreement with the applicants parent company that they would not use a "K" mark in the UK. However, the evidence filed was insufficient for the Hearing Officer to reach a conclusion in this matter and he found that the opponents failed on this ground.

In view of the decision under Section 5(2)(b), Section 5(4)(a) was not considered in detail.

Full decision O/448/01 PDF document46Kb