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 mark as the word RAINYSEASON. The opponent (hereafter referred to as … Continue reading Rainyseason (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 10 Mar 2005

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 Court of Appeal, who allowed registration under Section 12 of the 1938 Trade Marks … Continue reading Budweiser (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 2 Aug 2007

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. 2. Admission of ‘without prejudice’ evidence. 3. Bad faith; Section 32(3) not to be used as ‘a form of revocation prior to registration’. 4. Comparison of the marks MOBIL … Continue reading Mobilicity (Trade Mark: Opposition) O-367-04: IPO 14 Dec 2004

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 objections under Section 5(2)(b), giving as his view that the pleadings did not include an attack on … Continue reading Mobilicity (Trade Mark: Opposition) O-368-04: IPO 14 Dec 2004

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 their mark CORBIS. The opponents claimed use of their mark in relation to computer readable media from 1994 but only gave turnover … Continue reading Orbis Risk Management Others (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 25 Apr 2003

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 registrations for the marks HALLMARK and ISLAY HALLMARK in Class 33 in respect of the same and similar goods to those included within … Continue reading Vintage Hallmark of St Jamess’s (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 9 Apr 2002

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 were reduced to BIKES ‘R’ US, BIKES’ R’ US (with the R reversed), ‘R’US (with the R reversed) and TOYS ‘R’ … Continue reading Wheels ‘R’ Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 19 Oct 2006

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 and CTM) such as TOYS’R’US, MUMS’R’US, BABIES’R’US, ‘R’US etc in a range of classes. It also claimed extensive user … Continue reading Windows “R” Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 8 Aug 2006

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 same evidence and argument, but cited a different device mark. However, the Hearing Officer came to the same findings, dismissing opposition … Continue reading Pizza Pizza (Trade Mark: Opposition) O/187/01: IPO 19 Apr 2001

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 identical goods and services were involved under the respective marks, and that the opponent’s mark had a reasonably high distinctive character, … Continue reading Pizza Pizza (Trade Mark: Opposition) O/186/01: IPO 19 Apr 2001

The claimant appealed against findings by the Hearing Officer as to the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark. Judges: Briggs J Citations: [2011] EWHC 2021 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 5(2)(b) 5(3) 5(4)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.442449

Appeal against registration of mark. Citations: [2008] EWHC 3371 (Ch), [2008] Bus LR 1621 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 5(2)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.267664