BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [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 >> CARE MANAGER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o24303 (20 August 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o24303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o24303

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


CARE MANAGER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o24303 (20 August 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o24303

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/243/03
Decision date
20 August 2003
Hearing officer
Mrs A Corbett
Mark
CARE MANAGER
Classes
09, 35, 36, 37, 42
Applicant
Chesterton International Plc
Opponent
DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG
Opposition
Sections 5(1); 5(2)(a) & 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition partially successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents were proprietors of the Community Trade Mark registration 'CareManager' in Class 36, in respect of "Insurance; financial affairs"; the opposition was directed at all the goods and services specified in the application.

The Hearing Officer considered that despite the very slight differences in the marks CAREMANAGER and CareManager they were identical; or they were as closely similar as it is possible to be without being identical.

After a careful review of the services in Class 36 the Hearing Officer found them similar. The remaining goods and services she found to be not similar, nor were they in competition with or complementary to those of the opponents. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded in respect of Class 36 and failed in respect of the remainder of the application. Subject to an appropriate amendment the application was permitted to proceed.

In view of the fact that the opposition had covered all five classes and succeeded only in respect of one, and in view of the applicants’ efforts to avoid a conflict by an offered amendment, the Hearing Officer decided that each side should bear its own costs.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o24303.html