UR1 International

This decision concerns an application by UR1 International for the trade mark LIFE’S MOMENTS. The application was opposed by the owner of the cited registration LIFE’S MEMORABLE MOMENTS and device. The matter came before the hearing officer, Rachel Dunn.

The primary legal issues before the hearing officer were whether the applicant's trade mark could be accepted for registration despite the existence of a similar, earlier registered trade mark, and whether any exceptions to the general rule against registration applied. Specifically, the hearing officer considered whether acceptance was permissible under sections 44(4), 44(3)(a), or 44(3)(b) of the relevant Act, and whether there was a real tangible danger of deception or confusion in the marketplace.

The hearing officer found that the applicant's trade mark had not been used, precluding acceptance under sections 44(4) or 44(3)(a). While acknowledging the applicant's efforts to obtain a letter of consent from the owner of the cited registration, the hearing officer determined that the owner's lack of response did not imply consent or a lack of interest in preventing registration. The owner was under no obligation to provide consent, and opposition was not possible at that stage. Consequently, no "other circumstances" were found to justify acceptance under section 44(3)(b). The hearing officer concluded that there was a real tangible danger of deception and confusion if LIFE’S MOMENTS were registered alongside LIFE’S MEMORABLE MOMENTS and device.

Accordingly, under sections 33(3) and 44(1) of the Act, the application for the trade mark LIFE’S MOMENTS was rejected.