Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> RUN/WALK FOR LIFE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o01798 (13 January 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o01798.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o1798, [1998] UKIntelP o01798
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
RUN/WALK FOR LIFE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o01798 (13 January 1998)
For the whole decision click here: o01798
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/017/98
- Decision date
- 13 January 1998
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Morgan
- Mark
- RUN/WALK FOR LIFE
- Classes
- 41
- Applicant
- Run/Walk for Life International (PTY) Ltd
- Opponent
- Bladerunner Corporation (UK) Ltd
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar services were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks WALKING FOR LIFE and RUN/WALK FOR LIFE and device. The Hearing Officer decided that the words FOR LIFE were distinctive elements within the respective marks and he concluded that bearing imperfect recollection in mind, the respective marks compared as wholes, were confusingly similar. The opponents were thus successful on this ground.
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of registrations for the mark WALKING FOR LIFE in Classes 41 and 42 in respect of identical and similar services to those of the applicant. They had also used this mark from 1993 onwards and had promoted it widely within the UK. They had also launched other marks such as LIFECHECK and LIFESWITCH and had adopted the mark WALKING FOR LIFE some three months before the applicant's applied for their mark. The opponents claimed that the words FOR LIFE were associated with their company. The applicant's filed no evidence in support of their application.