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 >> GUSTO RESTAURANT AND BAR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o22808 (11 August 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o22808.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o22808 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o22808
Result
Opposition filed in wrong name: Hearing Officer allowed correction of error.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The background to the administrative dispute is that Gusto Inns Ltd (Inns) own a number of wholly owned subsidiaries including Gusto Pub.Co.Ltd (pub) in whose name the earlier marks relied upon in these proceedings, are registered. The opposition was filed in the name of Gusto Inns Ltd.
The Trade Mark (Relative Grounds) Order 2007 (“the order”) stipulates that an application for registration can only be refused on relative grounds if objection is raised by the proprietor of the earlier mark in question.
The Hearing Officer identified three primary issues for discussion:
1. Could a company lodge an opposition, relying on the earlier marks of a related company.
2. If an error has been made, was it permissible to correct the notice of opposition from one company to another, albeit a related company.
3. If neither of the above was permissible could one company be substituted for another, albeit related company.
As regards the first issue the Hearing Officer decided that as the earlier marks are registered in the name of Pub, and as Pub and Inns are distinct legal entities, then Inns cannot be the opponent on the basis of Pub’s earlier trade marks.
As to the second issue the Hearing Officer accepted the opponent’s explanation that the wrong name had been entered as the opponent because all the companies in the group are essentially owned by one person and that person had entered Inns as the opponent because it is the holding company for the group and most business is done in that name. In all the circumstances the Hearing Officer allowed Pub to be entered as the opponent in place of Inns.
In view of this decision in respect of issue 2 the Hearing Officer did not consider issue 3 firstly. However, in the circumstances of this case he indicated that the substitution of the named opponent by another would not have been allowed.
