WATERDROP Trade Mark Opposition - Dilution, Reputation and Proof of Use

Decision O/0275/26 examined five WATERDROP marks (word and figurative) across multiple statutory grounds. Grounds under Sections 5(1), 5(2), and 5(3) addressed dilution by blurring and tarnishment where the earlier mark has a reputation. Section 5(4) considered passing off claims arising from Registry proceedings. The decision also addressed proof of use requirements including whether genuine use was established and partial revocation to achieve a fair description of goods and services.

Parties dissatisfied with this Appointed Person decision may appeal to the High Court or, where appropriate, seek further review. Trade mark proprietors should ensure ongoing genuine use of their marks to defend against revocation actions. Brand owners facing potential dilution or confusion should document reputation evidence and the distinctive character of their marks.