Opposition in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Special Effects Ltd v L'Oréal SA
    • Court of Appeal
    • 12 Jan 2007

    It seems to us that the co-existence of the provisions for opposition and for a declaration of invalidity has the result that opposition proceedings are inherently not final. They exist at the first stage of the process, before registration.

    We could imagine the possibility that, if issues had been fought in that way in the Registry on an opposition, it might then be properly regarded as an abuse to fight the same issues again in court.

  • Special Effects Ltd v L'Oréal SA
    • Chancery Division
    • 17 Mar 2006

    What must be ascertained is whether there is a sufficient degree of identity between the First Defendant and the Second Defendant to make it just that the decision in the opposition proceedings should be binding on the Second Defendant in these proceedings. The Second Defendant could have been joined as a party to the opposition proceedings. In my view, prima facie, each company in a group is to be regarded as the privy of every other company in the group unless it demonstrates the contrary.

  • South Cone Inc. v Bessant and Others (t/a Reef)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 May 2002

    Hearing officers are usually very experienced in the practicalities of trade mark registration but are not normally qualified lawyers. Under sections 69 and 78 of the 1994 Act and the Trade Mark Rules 2000 ( SI 2000/136) evidence in opposition proceedings is given by affidavit or statutory declaration. Orders for cross-examination of deponents are permissible but have been rare in the past (although counsel suggested that there may be a trend towards their becoming rather less rare).

    It is not suggested that he was not experienced in this field, and there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Rules to diminish the degree of respect which has traditionally been shown to a hearing officer's specialised experience. In such circumstances an appellate court should in my view show a real reluctance, but not the very highest degree of reluctance, to interfere in the absence of a distinct and material error of principle.

  • Omega SA v Omega Engineering Ltd
    • Chancery Division
    • 28 Nov 2002

    It seems to me to be clear that if the proviso "unless intended for use in science and industry" is satisfied, then clause 4(a) ceases to have any application. Engineering can apply for what they please, provided that the specification is limited to goods for use in science and industry. The real question is whether, notwithstanding that Engineering can apply under 4(a), SA can oppose. That depends upon the construction of clause 4(c), to which I shall now turn.

  • Altecnic Ltd's Trade Mark Application (No.2126884); Reliance Water Controls Ltd v Altecnic Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 12 Dec 2001

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results