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!
 |
[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 >> e EuroFinance (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o22608 (8 August 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o22608.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o22608 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o22608
Result
Requirement for an address for service in the UK, in inter partes proceedings, maintained.
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opposition to the mark in suit was filed on 28 February 2008. Box 4 of the Form TM7 requires an address or service in the UK but in this case the following details were provided:
“Office Ernest T. Freylinger S.A.
234, route d’Arlon
PO Box 48
L-8001 Strassen
Luxembourg”
The opponent disputed the need for an address for service in the UK and claimed such a requirement was in breach of Articles 43 and 49 et seq of the EC Treaty. It also pointed to a recent European Court of Justice decision in relation to requirements imposed by The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg; other pending cases involving “Germany and Austria and the fact that the Royal Mail offers a very satisfactory delivery service to Luxembourg and other EEA Countries.
Following a hearing conducted by telephone, the Hearing Officer maintained the requirement for an address for service in the UK in all inter partes proceedings before the Registrar. Such a requirement was “reasonable, necessary and proportionate”. Notification of a ‘transmitting Agency’ did not satisfy the requirement.
In reaching his decision the Hearing Officer noted that the recent amendment to Rule 10 in 2006 allowed the Registrar a discretion to accept an address for service outside the UK in a particular case. However, this was not a general discretion and the availability of a satisfactory postal service between two states would only be one matter to take into account and was not persuasive in this case.
The Hearing Officer referred to an earlier decision BL O/177/06 (Galileo International) in reaching his decision in this case.
