Gap (ITM) Inc v Gap 360 Ltd

Trade mark – Validity. The Chancery Division held that the hearing officer had made errors of principle in reaching his decision, in a case concerning the respondent's application for the word mark 'GAP 360' in respect of various services in classes 35, 36, 39 and 41. The application, in all of the classes applied for, was sufficiently similar to the applicant clothing retailer's earlier trade marks, such that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of s 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.