Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
25 May 2007
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
10, 11
Wellcare Co Ltd
Wellcare Lifestyle Clinics Limited
Sections 5(2)(a); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Sections 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of the goods/services: Healthcare items, pharmaceuticals, healthcare services.


The application was in respect of various items of equipment and apparatus related to health. The opposition was based on use and registrations of the marks WELLCARE (In slightly varied type fonts) and WELLCARE lifestyle CLINICS in respect of healthcare services and pharmaceutical products.

Despite the similarity/identicality of the marks the Hearing Officer found the goods/services to be not similar. Overall, he found no likelihood of confusion and the objections under Section 5(2) failed.

The Hearing Officer was not convinced that the opponents had shown that the use of the latter mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to their marks. The Section 5(3) objection failed accordingly.

Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer’s view was that there was no likelihood of damage and that objection was dismissed also.

Full decision O/139/07 PDF document55Kb