Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
Intellectual PropertyUnited Kingdom
Free Form TM7 — UK Trade Mark Notice of Opposition Template
The Form TM7 Notice of Opposition is the procedural gateway to oppose a published UK trade mark application at the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and rule 17 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008. Our free United Kingdom template builds a structured opposition the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate quickly — opponent identity and agent details with a compliant UK address for service, the application opposed (number, applicant, mark, publication date, Nice classes), the earlier mark or earlier right relied on under section 5 or section 3, the opposition grounds matrix, the scope of opposition (full or partial) and four Expert clauses on the Sabel / Lloyd likelihood-of-confusion analysis, the Sky v SkyKick UKSC reputation + bad-faith framework, the Reckitt classical trinity for section 5(4) passing-off and the rule 18 cooling-off and TM9c extension strategy.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Form TM7 — Notice of Opposition
Trade Marks Act 1994 + Trade Marks Rules 2008 · 12 June 2026
TO: Intellectual Property Office
Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP10 8QQ
RE: Notice of opposition under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 against application no. UK00004118472 in the name of Heritage Ales Trading Limited
This notice of opposition is filed with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and rule 17 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008. The opponent objects to the registration of the application within the opposition window measured from the date of publication of the application in the Trade Marks Journal. The grounds, the earlier rights relied on and the scope of the opposition are particularised below.
Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP10 8QQ
RE: Notice of opposition under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 against application no. UK00004118472 in the name of Heritage Ales Trading Limited
This notice of opposition is filed with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office under section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and rule 17 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008. The opponent objects to the registration of the application within the opposition window measured from the date of publication of the application in the Trade Marks Journal. The grounds, the earlier rights relied on and the scope of the opposition are particularised below.
1. OPPONENT PARTICULARS
| OPPONENT NAME | Northwind Brewing Company Limited |
| OPPONENT ADDRESS | 7 Maltings Lane, Manchester M4 5JG |
| TELEPHONE | 0161 555 0149 |
| legal@northwindbrewing.co.uk | |
| AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE | Bramford and Partners LLP |
| AGENT ADDRESS | 14 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3NN |
| AGENT REFERENCE | BP-2026-NTW-TM7-118 |
| ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM | Bramford and Partners LLP, 14 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3NN |
2. APPLICATION OPPOSED
| APPLICATION NUMBER | UK00004118472 |
| APPLICANT NAME | Heritage Ales Trading Limited |
| APPLICANT ADDRESS | 22 Coppergate House, Leeds LS1 6JG |
| MARK TEXT OR DESCRIPTION | NORTHWIND HERITAGE (word mark in standard characters, applied for in classes 32 and 33) |
| APPLICATION FILING DATE | 4 March 2026 |
| PUBLICATION DATE (TRADE MARKS JOURNAL) | 18 April 2026 |
| NICE CLASSES APPLIED FOR | 32, 33, 43 |
3. EARLIER MARK OR RIGHT RELIED ON.
(a) Type of earlier right: United Kingdom registered trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994
(b) Earlier mark or registration number: UK00003221785
(c) Earlier mark or right particulars:
NORTHWIND (word mark in standard characters, registered in classes 32 and 33 covering beers, ales, lagers, craft beer products, alcoholic beverages excluding wines).
(d) Earlier filing or use-establishment date: 21 September 2014
(e) Earlier registered classes: 32, 33
(a) Type of earlier right: United Kingdom registered trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994
(b) Earlier mark or registration number: UK00003221785
(c) Earlier mark or right particulars:
NORTHWIND (word mark in standard characters, registered in classes 32 and 33 covering beers, ales, lagers, craft beer products, alcoholic beverages excluding wines).
(d) Earlier filing or use-establishment date: 21 September 2014
(e) Earlier registered classes: 32, 33
4. OPPOSITION GROUNDS.
(a) Statutory grounds relied on: (i) Section 5(2) — similar mark or similar goods or services where a likelihood of confusion arises; (j) Section 5(3) — earlier mark with reputation; later mark would take unfair advantage or be detrimental; (k) Section 5(4) — earlier right (passing-off or other earlier right) in the United Kingdom.
(b) Summary of the opposition grounds:
The opponent opposes the application on three primary statutory grounds. Section 5(2): the applied-for mark NORTHWIND HERITAGE contains the opponent earlier mark NORTHWIND in its entirety as the dominant element; the goods in classes 32 and 33 are identical; there is a likelihood of confusion on the global appreciation test. Section 5(3): the opponent earlier mark NORTHWIND has a reputation across the United Kingdom craft-beer market acquired through twelve years of continued use, twenty-three million pounds of cumulative turnover and material advertising spend; the applied-for mark would take unfair advantage of and be detrimental to the distinctive character of NORTHWIND. Section 5(4): the opponent has goodwill in the NORTHWIND sign in the United Kingdom amounting to an earlier right enforceable by passing-off; the applied-for mark would be calculated to deceive the relevant public into believing the applicant goods originate from or are connected with the opponent.
(a) Statutory grounds relied on: (i) Section 5(2) — similar mark or similar goods or services where a likelihood of confusion arises; (j) Section 5(3) — earlier mark with reputation; later mark would take unfair advantage or be detrimental; (k) Section 5(4) — earlier right (passing-off or other earlier right) in the United Kingdom.
(b) Summary of the opposition grounds:
The opponent opposes the application on three primary statutory grounds. Section 5(2): the applied-for mark NORTHWIND HERITAGE contains the opponent earlier mark NORTHWIND in its entirety as the dominant element; the goods in classes 32 and 33 are identical; there is a likelihood of confusion on the global appreciation test. Section 5(3): the opponent earlier mark NORTHWIND has a reputation across the United Kingdom craft-beer market acquired through twelve years of continued use, twenty-three million pounds of cumulative turnover and material advertising spend; the applied-for mark would take unfair advantage of and be detrimental to the distinctive character of NORTHWIND. Section 5(4): the opponent has goodwill in the NORTHWIND sign in the United Kingdom amounting to an earlier right enforceable by passing-off; the applied-for mark would be calculated to deceive the relevant public into believing the applicant goods originate from or are connected with the opponent.
5. SCOPE OF OPPOSITION.
The opposition is directed at the goods or services specified below (partial opposition).
Partial scope — goods or services targeted:
Class 32 — all goods (beers, lagers, ales, low-alcohol versions). Class 33 — all goods (alcoholic beverages excluding wines). Class 43 — restaurant, bar and public-house services. The opponent does not oppose any wine-only goods in class 33 should the applicant offer to limit the specification accordingly.
The opposition is directed at the goods or services specified below (partial opposition).
Partial scope — goods or services targeted:
Class 32 — all goods (beers, lagers, ales, low-alcohol versions). Class 33 — all goods (alcoholic beverages excluding wines). Class 43 — restaurant, bar and public-house services. The opponent does not oppose any wine-only goods in class 33 should the applicant offer to limit the specification accordingly.
6. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION — GLOBAL APPRECIATION (SABEL AND LLOYD).
The Court of Justice in Sabel BV v Puma AG (Case C-251/95) established the global appreciation test for likelihood of confusion under what is now section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The decision-maker stands back and weighs the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks against the distinctive character of the earlier mark and the perception of the average consumer of the goods or services. Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel (Case C-342/97) defined the average consumer as reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.
(a) Visual similarity analysis:
The applied-for mark NORTHWIND HERITAGE incorporates the opponent earlier mark NORTHWIND in its entirety as the visually dominant first element. The descriptive suffix HERITAGE follows but does not displace the dominant initial position which the average consumer reads first. Both marks are presented in standard characters in upper case. On a side-by-side visual comparison the marks are highly similar in their dominant and distinctive component.
(b) Aural similarity analysis:
Phonetically the applied-for mark is pronounced NORTH-WIND-HE-RI-TAGE in a five-syllable structure; the opponent mark is pronounced NORTH-WIND in a two-syllable structure. The opening two syllables are identical. The average consumer in a noisy retail pub or bar environment will not distinguish reliably between an ordered pint of NORTHWIND and an ordered pint of NORTHWIND HERITAGE; the stress lies on the opening NORTH-WIND component for both marks.
(c) Conceptual similarity analysis:
Conceptually both marks evoke the same northerly geographic and meteorological concept anchored on the noun WIND. The addition of HERITAGE in the applied-for mark conveys a craft-tradition concept that supplements but does not displace the core NORTHWIND concept; the average consumer will read the applied-for mark as a heritage variant in the NORTHWIND family.
(d) Average consumer definition:
The average consumer for craft-beer products in classes 32 and 33 is a member of the general adult British public purchasing alcoholic beverages in retail, on-licence and online channels. The degree of attention is moderate — the goods are not high-investment purchases and the purchasing context (supermarket aisle, pub bar, online click) does not lend itself to side-by-side mark comparison. Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel confirms the average consumer is reasonably observant and circumspect but the recall is imperfect.
(e) Distinctive character of the earlier mark:
The opponent mark NORTHWIND has high inherent distinctiveness for beverages in classes 32 and 33 — the word is invented or fanciful in the relevant context. The mark has further acquired distinctiveness through use across the United Kingdom over twelve years; twenty-three million pounds of turnover, three million pounds of cumulative advertising spend, and brand-recognition survey data showing forty-two per cent unaided recall in the craft-beer category support the acquired distinctiveness position.
The Court of Justice in Sabel BV v Puma AG (Case C-251/95) established the global appreciation test for likelihood of confusion under what is now section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The decision-maker stands back and weighs the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks against the distinctive character of the earlier mark and the perception of the average consumer of the goods or services. Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel (Case C-342/97) defined the average consumer as reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.
(a) Visual similarity analysis:
The applied-for mark NORTHWIND HERITAGE incorporates the opponent earlier mark NORTHWIND in its entirety as the visually dominant first element. The descriptive suffix HERITAGE follows but does not displace the dominant initial position which the average consumer reads first. Both marks are presented in standard characters in upper case. On a side-by-side visual comparison the marks are highly similar in their dominant and distinctive component.
(b) Aural similarity analysis:
Phonetically the applied-for mark is pronounced NORTH-WIND-HE-RI-TAGE in a five-syllable structure; the opponent mark is pronounced NORTH-WIND in a two-syllable structure. The opening two syllables are identical. The average consumer in a noisy retail pub or bar environment will not distinguish reliably between an ordered pint of NORTHWIND and an ordered pint of NORTHWIND HERITAGE; the stress lies on the opening NORTH-WIND component for both marks.
(c) Conceptual similarity analysis:
Conceptually both marks evoke the same northerly geographic and meteorological concept anchored on the noun WIND. The addition of HERITAGE in the applied-for mark conveys a craft-tradition concept that supplements but does not displace the core NORTHWIND concept; the average consumer will read the applied-for mark as a heritage variant in the NORTHWIND family.
(d) Average consumer definition:
The average consumer for craft-beer products in classes 32 and 33 is a member of the general adult British public purchasing alcoholic beverages in retail, on-licence and online channels. The degree of attention is moderate — the goods are not high-investment purchases and the purchasing context (supermarket aisle, pub bar, online click) does not lend itself to side-by-side mark comparison. Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel confirms the average consumer is reasonably observant and circumspect but the recall is imperfect.
(e) Distinctive character of the earlier mark:
The opponent mark NORTHWIND has high inherent distinctiveness for beverages in classes 32 and 33 — the word is invented or fanciful in the relevant context. The mark has further acquired distinctiveness through use across the United Kingdom over twelve years; twenty-three million pounds of turnover, three million pounds of cumulative advertising spend, and brand-recognition survey data showing forty-two per cent unaided recall in the craft-beer category support the acquired distinctiveness position.
7. REPUTATION AND BAD FAITH (SKY v SKYKICK UKSC FRAMEWORK).
Section 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 requires the opponent to demonstrate that the earlier mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and that the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark. Sky plc v SkyKick UK Ltd [2024] UKSC 36 is the Supreme Court landmark on bad faith under section 3(6); it confirmed that an application filed with an overly broad specification with no genuine intention to use across the breadth of the goods or services claimed may be invalidated for bad faith.
(a) Reputation evidence relied on:
The opponent advances the following reputation evidence under section 5(3): (i) United Kingdom turnover of twenty-three million pounds across the twelve-year period 2014-2026; (ii) cumulative advertising spend of three million pounds across print, outdoor and digital channels; (iii) distribution into seventeen United Kingdom multiple-retailer chains and two thousand-four-hundred independent on-licence outlets; (iv) brand-recognition survey conducted by YouGov in 2025 reporting forty-two per cent unaided recall in the craft-beer category; (v) sponsorship of the Greater Manchester Craft Beer Festival 2022-2026; (vi) press coverage in The Guardian, the Telegraph and a sustained presence in BeerCAMRA publications.
(b) Unfair advantage or detriment position:
The applied-for mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of NORTHWIND by free-riding on the reputation built up by the opponent over twelve years — the applicant would obtain a marketing benefit without the corresponding investment. The applied-for mark would also cause detriment to the distinctive character of NORTHWIND (blurring) by introducing a second NORTHWIND-family mark into the same craft-beer category, thereby weakening the singular association the average consumer has between NORTHWIND and the opponent. The risk of tarnishment is moderate but real should the applicant goods be of lesser quality.
(c) Bad-faith specification challenge under section 3(6):
The applied-for specification in class 43 (restaurant, bar and public-house services) extends well beyond the demonstrated trading activity of the applicant which has been confined to small-batch ale production. The opponent reserves the right to advance a Sky v SkyKick bad-faith challenge under section 3(6) on the basis that the applicant has no genuine intention to use across class 43; that head of attack remains open should the applicant fail to limit the specification during the cooling-off period.
Section 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 requires the opponent to demonstrate that the earlier mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and that the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark. Sky plc v SkyKick UK Ltd [2024] UKSC 36 is the Supreme Court landmark on bad faith under section 3(6); it confirmed that an application filed with an overly broad specification with no genuine intention to use across the breadth of the goods or services claimed may be invalidated for bad faith.
(a) Reputation evidence relied on:
The opponent advances the following reputation evidence under section 5(3): (i) United Kingdom turnover of twenty-three million pounds across the twelve-year period 2014-2026; (ii) cumulative advertising spend of three million pounds across print, outdoor and digital channels; (iii) distribution into seventeen United Kingdom multiple-retailer chains and two thousand-four-hundred independent on-licence outlets; (iv) brand-recognition survey conducted by YouGov in 2025 reporting forty-two per cent unaided recall in the craft-beer category; (v) sponsorship of the Greater Manchester Craft Beer Festival 2022-2026; (vi) press coverage in The Guardian, the Telegraph and a sustained presence in BeerCAMRA publications.
(b) Unfair advantage or detriment position:
The applied-for mark would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character of NORTHWIND by free-riding on the reputation built up by the opponent over twelve years — the applicant would obtain a marketing benefit without the corresponding investment. The applied-for mark would also cause detriment to the distinctive character of NORTHWIND (blurring) by introducing a second NORTHWIND-family mark into the same craft-beer category, thereby weakening the singular association the average consumer has between NORTHWIND and the opponent. The risk of tarnishment is moderate but real should the applicant goods be of lesser quality.
(c) Bad-faith specification challenge under section 3(6):
The applied-for specification in class 43 (restaurant, bar and public-house services) extends well beyond the demonstrated trading activity of the applicant which has been confined to small-batch ale production. The opponent reserves the right to advance a Sky v SkyKick bad-faith challenge under section 3(6) on the basis that the applicant has no genuine intention to use across class 43; that head of attack remains open should the applicant fail to limit the specification during the cooling-off period.
8. EARLIER RIGHT UNDER SECTION 5(4) — PASSING-OFF (RECKITT TRINITY).
Section 5(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 permits opposition based on any earlier right enforceable by virtue of the law of passing-off or any other rule of law protecting an unregistered sign used in the course of trade. Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491 sets the classical trinity — goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. Whyte and Mackay v Origin Wines [2015] EWHC 1271 (Ch) confirmed the application of the trinity in the section 5(4) opposition context.
(a) Goodwill evidence in the United Kingdom:
The opponent has established goodwill in the NORTHWIND sign across the United Kingdom in classes 32, 33 and the related hospitality space. The goodwill is evidenced by (i) continuous use of NORTHWIND on craft-beer products since 21 September 2014; (ii) United Kingdom sales of twenty-three million pounds; (iii) distribution into seventeen multiple-retailer chains; (iv) operation of the NORTHWIND-branded tap-room and brewery in Manchester since 2018 attracting two hundred-thousand visitors annually; (v) sustained social-media presence with ninety-four-thousand Instagram followers and forty-seven-thousand Facebook followers.
(b) Misrepresentation position:
The proposed use of NORTHWIND HERITAGE in classes 32 and 33 would amount to a misrepresentation to the relevant public — adult craft-beer consumers in the United Kingdom — that the applicant goods originate from or are commercially connected with the opponent. The deceptive effect arises from the incorporation of the opponent dominant sign NORTHWIND as the first and dominant element of the applied-for mark; the descriptive suffix HERITAGE does not dispel the connection but reinforces it as a heritage variant of the existing NORTHWIND brand.
(c) Damage position:
Damage will follow from diversion of trade in the craft-beer category — purchasers seeking the opponent NORTHWIND product will purchase the applicant goods believing them to be a heritage variant. Damage will also follow from dilution of the goodwill associated with the NORTHWIND sign and loss of the opponent ability to license or sub-brand around its own NORTHWIND family. The opponent does not need to demonstrate quantified damage at the opposition stage; the Reckitt trinity is satisfied on the likelihood of damage following from the misrepresentation.
Section 5(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 permits opposition based on any earlier right enforceable by virtue of the law of passing-off or any other rule of law protecting an unregistered sign used in the course of trade. Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491 sets the classical trinity — goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. Whyte and Mackay v Origin Wines [2015] EWHC 1271 (Ch) confirmed the application of the trinity in the section 5(4) opposition context.
(a) Goodwill evidence in the United Kingdom:
The opponent has established goodwill in the NORTHWIND sign across the United Kingdom in classes 32, 33 and the related hospitality space. The goodwill is evidenced by (i) continuous use of NORTHWIND on craft-beer products since 21 September 2014; (ii) United Kingdom sales of twenty-three million pounds; (iii) distribution into seventeen multiple-retailer chains; (iv) operation of the NORTHWIND-branded tap-room and brewery in Manchester since 2018 attracting two hundred-thousand visitors annually; (v) sustained social-media presence with ninety-four-thousand Instagram followers and forty-seven-thousand Facebook followers.
(b) Misrepresentation position:
The proposed use of NORTHWIND HERITAGE in classes 32 and 33 would amount to a misrepresentation to the relevant public — adult craft-beer consumers in the United Kingdom — that the applicant goods originate from or are commercially connected with the opponent. The deceptive effect arises from the incorporation of the opponent dominant sign NORTHWIND as the first and dominant element of the applied-for mark; the descriptive suffix HERITAGE does not dispel the connection but reinforces it as a heritage variant of the existing NORTHWIND brand.
(c) Damage position:
Damage will follow from diversion of trade in the craft-beer category — purchasers seeking the opponent NORTHWIND product will purchase the applicant goods believing them to be a heritage variant. Damage will also follow from dilution of the goodwill associated with the NORTHWIND sign and loss of the opponent ability to license or sub-brand around its own NORTHWIND family. The opponent does not need to demonstrate quantified damage at the opposition stage; the Reckitt trinity is satisfied on the likelihood of damage following from the misrepresentation.
9. COOLING-OFF PERIOD AND TM9c EXTENSION STRATEGY.
Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 provides for a cooling-off period during which the parties to an opposition may negotiate without the evidence rounds being engaged. The cooling-off may be entered into by joint request and extended by agreement on form TM9c. The cooling-off framework supports settlement, withdrawal of the application, narrowing of the specification or grant of a co-existence agreement.
(a) Cooling-off intent: The opponent is willing to enter the cooling-off period to invite a meaningful counter-proposal from the applicant before electing whether to settle or to proceed.
(b) Negotiation strategy:
The opponent is willing to enter a cooling-off period to invite the applicant to (i) withdraw the class 43 specification in its entirety; (ii) limit class 32 and 33 to wine-only goods (which the opponent does not oppose); (iii) execute a co-existence agreement giving the opponent a five-year right of first refusal on any rebrand from NORTHWIND HERITAGE; (iv) reimburse the opponent for the costs of the opposition to date on the standard UKIPO scale.
(c) Fallback position if cooling-off does not produce a resolution:
If the cooling-off period does not produce a negotiated outcome the opponent will proceed to the evidence rounds under rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 with the reputation, brand-recognition survey, financial and trade-channel evidence already collated. The opponent will request the written-reply route in the first instance and reserve the right to request an oral hearing should the case turn on disputed facts. Standard UKIPO costs scale is sought from the applicant.
Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 provides for a cooling-off period during which the parties to an opposition may negotiate without the evidence rounds being engaged. The cooling-off may be entered into by joint request and extended by agreement on form TM9c. The cooling-off framework supports settlement, withdrawal of the application, narrowing of the specification or grant of a co-existence agreement.
(a) Cooling-off intent: The opponent is willing to enter the cooling-off period to invite a meaningful counter-proposal from the applicant before electing whether to settle or to proceed.
(b) Negotiation strategy:
The opponent is willing to enter a cooling-off period to invite the applicant to (i) withdraw the class 43 specification in its entirety; (ii) limit class 32 and 33 to wine-only goods (which the opponent does not oppose); (iii) execute a co-existence agreement giving the opponent a five-year right of first refusal on any rebrand from NORTHWIND HERITAGE; (iv) reimburse the opponent for the costs of the opposition to date on the standard UKIPO scale.
(c) Fallback position if cooling-off does not produce a resolution:
If the cooling-off period does not produce a negotiated outcome the opponent will proceed to the evidence rounds under rule 19 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 with the reputation, brand-recognition survey, financial and trade-channel evidence already collated. The opponent will request the written-reply route in the first instance and reserve the right to request an oral hearing should the case turn on disputed facts. Standard UKIPO costs scale is sought from the applicant.
10. STATEMENT OF TRUTH. The opponent believes that the facts stated in this notice of opposition are true. The opponent confirms that the address for service is in the United Kingdom and that the opponent or its representative is authorised to receive correspondence at that address. The opponent understands that the UKIPO may strike out the notice if the address for service is not within the prescribed jurisdiction.
OPPONENT
Bramford and Partners LLP
Authorised representative
Northwind Brewing Company Limited
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is a Form TM7 Notice of Opposition?
Form TM7 is the prescribed United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office form for filing a notice of opposition against a UK trade mark application that has been published in the Trade Marks Journal. Section 38(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides the statutory opposition window — typically two months from publication, extendable by a further one-month period on filing Form TM7A (notice of threatened opposition). The UKIPO Trade Marks Registry administers the opposition and the matter is decided by a Hearing Officer applying the established opposition framework.
Opposition grounds fall under section 5 (relative grounds) and section 3 (absolute grounds) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Section 5(1) covers identical earlier mark for identical goods or services. Section 5(2) covers similar mark or similar goods or services where a likelihood of confusion arises — the Sabel BV v Puma AG global appreciation test (Case C-251/95) and the Lloyd v Klijsen average consumer test (Case C-342/97) are the leading EU-derived authorities the UK courts continue to apply. Section 5(3) covers the earlier mark with reputation where the later mark would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute. Section 5(4) covers earlier rights (including passing-off) under the classical Reckitt v Borden trinity — goodwill, misrepresentation and damage.
The Sky plc v SkyKick UK Ltd [2024] UKSC 36 Supreme Court decision is the landmark UK trade mark bad-faith authority. The Supreme Court held that an application filed with an overly broad specification with no genuine intention to use across the breadth of the goods or services claimed may be invalidated for bad faith under section 3(6). The decision has reshaped UK opposition strategy for new applications with broad multi-class specifications. Filing strategy decisions now factor the post-SkyKick bad-faith exposure into specification drafting. The address for service must be in the United Kingdom under the post-Brexit regime; an opposition filed without a UK address for service will be returned by the registry.
What's Covered in This Template
Our United Kingdom Form TM7 template builds a structured notice of opposition the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate quickly — opponent identity, application opposed, earlier right relied on, opposition grounds, scope and four Expert clauses on likelihood of confusion, reputation + bad faith, passing-off and cooling-off strategy.
TMA 1994 Section 38 + Rule 17 Procedure
Engages the United Kingdom statutory framework establishing the opposition window from publication in the Trade Marks Journal and the Form TM7 procedure under rule 17 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008.
Section 5 Relative Grounds Matrix
Records the section 5(1) identical-mark identical-goods ground, the section 5(2) likelihood-of-confusion ground, the section 5(3) reputation + unfair-advantage / detriment ground and the section 5(4) earlier-right / passing-off ground.
Section 3 Absolute Grounds + Bad Faith
Engages the section 3 absolute grounds (descriptive, customary, contrary to public policy) and the section 3(6) bad-faith ground developed by the Supreme Court in Sky v SkyKick [2024] UKSC 36.
Sabel + Lloyd Global Appreciation (Expert)
Expert clause builds the global appreciation case across visual, aural and conceptual similarity, the average consumer test and the distinctive character of the earlier mark across the United Kingdom.
Sky v SkyKick UKSC Reputation + Bad Faith (Expert)
Expert clause applies Sky v SkyKick [2024] UKSC 36 to the reputation evidence under section 5(3), the unfair-advantage / detriment position and the parallel bad-faith specification challenge under section 3(6).
Reckitt Trinity for Passing-Off (Expert)
Expert clause applies the Reckitt v Borden [1990] 1 WLR 491 classical trinity — goodwill, misrepresentation and damage — to the section 5(4) earlier-right opposition under the law of passing-off across the United Kingdom.
Rule 18 Cooling-Off + TM9c Strategy (Expert)
Expert clause sets the rule 18 cooling-off intent, the TM9c extension position and the negotiation strategy — acceptable amendments, co-existence scope, geographic limits and licence-back position.
Six Earlier-Right Types
Supports six earlier-right categories — UK registered marks, comparable EU marks (post-Brexit derivative rights), international Madrid registrations designating UK, well-known marks (Paris Convention 6bis), common-law goodwill and other earlier rights (copyright, design, GI).
UK Address for Service Compliance
Confirms the post-Brexit UK address-for-service requirement — opposition without a UK address for service is returned by the registry. Address can be the opponent address or the agent / representative address.
Partial Opposition Scope
Supports partial opposition where only certain goods or services in the applied-for specification are targeted; the opposition then carves out the unchallenged classes for efficient resolution.
Concept House Newport Filing Address
The UKIPO postal address is set to the registered office at Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ; online filing via the One IPO digital service is also available.
How to File a Form TM7 Notice of Opposition
Follow these steps to produce a structured Form TM7 the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate within the opposition window across the United Kingdom trade mark opposition system.
- 1
Confirm the Opposition Window
Confirm the application has been published in the Trade Marks Journal and identify the publication date. The statutory two-month opposition window under section 38(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 runs from publication; the window can be extended by a further one-month period by filing Form TM7A.
- 2
Identify the Application Precisely
Record the UK application number (UK00 prefix + unique sequence), the applicant name and the mark text or description. The Nice classes claimed in the application drive the scope of opposition decision.
- 3
Identify the Earlier Right Relied On
Choose the earlier-right category — UK registered, comparable EU (post-Brexit derivative right), international Madrid registration designating UK, well-known mark under Paris Convention 6bis, common-law goodwill (passing-off) or other earlier right (copyright, design, geographical indication). For registered earlier rights record the registration number, the filing date and the registered classes.
- 4
Build the Opposition Grounds Matrix
Tick each statutory ground relied on. Strong oppositions typically combine section 5(2) likelihood of confusion with section 5(3) reputation and section 5(4) passing-off as alternative parallel routes. Bad faith under section 3(6) is added where the post-SkyKick framework supports the challenge to the specification.
- 5
Decide the Scope of Opposition
Full opposition targets all goods or services in the applied-for specification. Partial opposition targets only the conflicting classes leaving the unchallenged classes to proceed. The decision turns on the breadth of the earlier right, the negotiation strategy and the costs anchor sought.
- 6
Build the Expert Clauses (Sabel / SkyKick / Reckitt / Cooling-Off)
The four Expert clauses build the substantive opposition: (i) Sabel + Lloyd likelihood-of-confusion analysis across visual / aural / conceptual similarity with average consumer and distinctive character; (ii) Sky v SkyKick reputation evidence and bad-faith specification challenge; (iii) Reckitt classical trinity for section 5(4) passing-off; (iv) rule 18 cooling-off intent and TM9c extension strategy.
- 7
Confirm the UK Address for Service
The address for service must be in the United Kingdom under the post-Brexit regime — either the opponent address or the agent / representative address. Opposition filed without a UK address for service will be returned by the registry.
- 8
File with the UKIPO
File the Form TM7 with the UKIPO at Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ or via the One IPO digital service. Enclose the prescribed opposition fee. The registry will serve the opposition on the applicant and the rule 18 cooling-off period or evidence rounds under rule 19 will then follow.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations — Form TM7 Notice of Opposition
Form TM7 oppositions in the United Kingdom are governed by section 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Rules 2008 (SI 2008/1797). The opposition framework operates the same across all UK trade mark applications regardless of the applicant location.
This template is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. UK trade mark oppositions are technical proceedings and turn on the specific facts of the marks, the goods or services, the evidence of reputation or goodwill and the post-SkyKick bad-faith jurisprudence. Specialist Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys and intellectual property solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority advise on contested oppositions. The UKIPO Hearing Officer has the first-instance decision on the merits.
Reviewed for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
Statutory Framework — TMA 1994 + Trade Marks Rules 2008
The Trade Marks Act 1994 is the primary statute governing UK trade mark oppositions. Section 38 provides the opposition window and procedure. Sections 5 and 3 set the substantive grounds. The Trade Marks Rules 2008 (SI 2008/1797) provide the procedural framework — rule 17 for Form TM7 itself, rule 18 for the cooling-off period and rule 19 for the evidence rounds. The UKIPO Trade Marks Registry administers the opposition and the matter is decided by a Hearing Officer applying the long-established framework across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Sabel + Lloyd Likelihood of Confusion
Sabel BV v Puma AG (Case C-251/95) established the global appreciation test for likelihood of confusion under what is now section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The decision-maker stands back and weighs the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks against the distinctive character of the earlier mark and the perception of the average consumer of the goods or services. Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel (Case C-342/97) defined the average consumer as reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, with imperfect recall. The UK courts continue to apply both authorities post-Brexit.
Sky v SkyKick UKSC — Bad Faith Landmark
Sky plc v SkyKick UK Ltd [2024] UKSC 36 is the Supreme Court landmark on bad faith under section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The Supreme Court held that an application filed with an overly broad specification with no genuine intention to use across the breadth of the goods or services claimed may be invalidated for bad faith. The decision has reshaped UK trade mark prosecution and opposition strategy — opponents now factor the bad-faith head into broad-specification challenges and applicants now factor the post-SkyKick exposure into specification drafting decisions across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Section 5(4) Passing-Off — Reckitt Trinity
Section 5(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 permits opposition based on any earlier right enforceable by virtue of the law of passing-off or any other rule of law protecting an unregistered sign used in the course of trade. Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491 set the classical trinity — goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. Whyte and Mackay v Origin Wines [2015] EWHC 1271 (Ch) confirmed the application of the trinity in the section 5(4) opposition context. The earlier-right opposition under passing-off is the primary route for unregistered British trade marks with goodwill.
Rule 18 Cooling-Off + TM9c Extension
Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 provides for a cooling-off period during which the parties to an opposition may negotiate without the evidence rounds being engaged. The cooling-off may be entered into by joint request and extended by agreement on form TM9c. The cooling-off framework supports settlement, withdrawal of the application, narrowing of the specification or grant of a co-existence agreement. The majority of UK trade mark oppositions resolve during the cooling-off period without proceeding to the evidence rounds.
Post-Brexit UK Address for Service
Following the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union, the UKIPO requires every party to a UK trade mark opposition to maintain an address for service in the United Kingdom. The address can be the opponent address, the agent address or any other UK address at which the opponent will receive correspondence. Opposition filed without a UK address for service will be returned by the registry. Comparable EU trade marks derived from EU registrations on 1 January 2021 remain valid earlier rights under section 6 across the United Kingdom.
Frequently Asked Questions
Build Your TM7 Notice of Opposition
Produce a structured notice of opposition the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate quickly — opponent identity and agent details with a compliant UK address for service, the application opposed by application number and Nice classes, the earlier mark or earlier right relied on under section 5 or section 3, the opposition grounds matrix and four Expert clauses on the Sabel / Lloyd likelihood-of-confusion analysis, the Sky v SkyKick UKSC reputation + bad-faith framework, the Reckitt classical trinity for section 5(4) passing-off and the rule 18 cooling-off and TM9c extension strategy. Drafted under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Rules 2008 across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required