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 >> ELIZABETH EMANUEL ELIZABETH EMANUEL double E crown device (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o19603 (27 June 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o19603.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o19603

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


ELIZABETH EMANUEL ELIZABETH EMANUEL double E crown device (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o19603 (27 June 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o19603

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/196/03
Decision date
27 June 2003
Hearing officer
Mr David Kitchin QC
Mark
ELIZABETH EMANUEL ELIZABETH EMANUEL & double E & crown device
Classes
03, 14, 18, 25
Applicant
Continental Shelf 128 Limited
Opponent
Elizabeth Florence Emanuel
Opposition
Sections 3(3)(b), 3(6) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Request to refer appeals to the Appointed Person to the High Court: Requests refused.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The Hearing Officer in the above proceedings found for Continental Shelf 128 Limited. (Decisions dated 17 October 2002 (BL O/424/02 and BL O/425/02). Ms Emanuel appealed to the Appointed Person. Subsequently, Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (CSL) requested that the two appeals be referred to the High Court.

The Appointed Person considered his powers to refer the proceedings to the Court; the fact that Ms Emanuel objected to the transfer and would probably have to discontinue with the appeals on cost grounds and he noted that there was no request from the Registrar to refer the proceedings. The Appointed Person accepted that the appeal raised a point of general legal importance as to the scope of Section 3(3)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 but noted that he still retained a discretion not to refer. In his view it was better for the matter to be considered by the Appointed Person, than not at all if the appeal was discontinued on reference to the Court. Taking account of all the relevant facts, including that of “the public interest” the Appointed Person refused to refer these appeals to the Court.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o19603.html