BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> CHIC FEET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o09806 (10 April 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o09806.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o9806, [2006] UKIntelP o09806

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


CHIC FEET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o09806 (10 April 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o09806

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/098/06
Decision date
10 April 2006
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
CHIC FEET
Classes
03, 05, 08, 10
Applicant
Scholl Limited
Opponent
Lidl Stiftung & Co Kg

Result

Section 5(4): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponent is the owner of the mark CHIC and device registered in Class 3 in respect of a range of soaps, perfumery, cosmetics etc. The opponent filed evidence of use of its mark but the evidence was not well focused and while the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had some goodwill in its mark in relation to styling mousse and hair-spray but no significant reputation.

The Hearing Officer compared the respective goods and considered that the applicant’s goods in Classes 8 and 10 were far removed from the goods of the opponent; the goods in Class 5 were only vaguely similar but the goods in the applicant’s Class 3 application were similar to the goods of the opponent. The Hearing Officer then went on to compare the respective marks CHIC and device and CHIC FEET. While he accepted that there were visual and aural similarities because of the presence of the word CHIC he decided that conceptually they were different and that overall there was unlikely to be misrepresentation even in relation to the applicant’s Class 3 goods. Opposition, therefore, failed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o09806.html