The Hearing Officer commented upon the stylization of the mark as advertised – with a lowercase ‘i’ and noted that this appeared to be at odds with the mark depicted on the application form. However, nothing turned on this point and he treated the . .
IPO There has been a long running dispute between these two party’s dating back to the early 1980’s. The mark in suit was applied for on 28 June 1989 and was opposed by the current applicant all the way to the . .
IPO Section 3(6): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): – Opposition failed.
1. Admission of additional evidence. . .
1. Statement of grounds of opposition : scope of the attack.
2. Amendment of pleadings; inherent jurisdiction to allow.
In dealing with the opposition to this application (see BL O/367/04) the Hearing Officer questioned the scope of the . .
IPO Three separate oppositions, not consolidated, but as same issues involved only one decision.
The opponents’ opposition was based on their ownership of registrations in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 of . .
Section 3(6) – Opposition succeeded
Section 5(2)(b) – Opposition succeeded against the applicants Class 33 application.
Proprietorship: There must be a proprietor in existence at the date of application.
The opponents owned . .
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition partially successful in respect of Class 12 goods. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.
The opponent relied on a number of prior registrations but these . .
ICO Section 5(2)(b): Invalidity action failed. Section 5(3): Invalidity action failed
Section 5(4)(a): Invalidity action failed. Section 56(2): Invalidity action failed
The applicant in these . .
IPO Opposition based on opponent’s registration of a TWIN CHEF device mark in Class 30. The opposition related to the same application under consideration in SRIS O/186/01, and the opponent relied on largely the . .
IPO Opposition based on opponent’s various registrations (Community and UK) of a TWIN CHEFS device mark in Classes 29, 30 and 32. In regard to opposition under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer accepted that . .
References:  UKIntelP o22406 Links: Bailii Coram: Mrs J Pike ICO Section 5(2)(b): Invalidity action failed. Section 5(3): Invalidity action failed Section 5(4)(a): Invalidity action failed. Section 56(2): Invalidity action failed The applicant in these proceedings is the owner of a number of registered marks (UK & CTM) such as TOYS’R’US, MUMS’R’US, BABIES’R’US, ‘R’US etc … Continue reading Windows ‘R’ Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 8 Aug 2006
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition Judges: Mr M Reynolds Citations: 2009499, OPP 43532,  UKIntelP o12498 Links: PO, IPO, Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 5(2)(b) Cited by: See Also – EE Elizabeth Emanuel (Trade Mark: Revocation) IPO 17-Oct-2002 IPO In the parallel opposition proceedings (BL O/024/02) which has been reviewed … Continue reading ‘Elizabeth Emanuel’: Application No 2009499: TMR 9 Jun 1998
The claimant appealed against findings by the Hearing Officer as to the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark. . .
Appeal against registration of mark. . .