Decision Nº O/440/13 from Intellectual Property Office - (Trade market), 5 November 2013
| Judge | Professor Ruth Annand |
| Date | 05 November 2013 |
| Registration Number | UK00002492278, UK00002521514 |
| Administrative Decision Number | O/440/13 |
| Court | Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom) |
O-440-13
1
TRADE MARKS ACT 1994
IN THE MATTER OF TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS Nos. 2521514 & 2492278
IN THE NAME OF ADELPHOI LIMITED
AND IN THE MATTER OF CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITIONS Nos. 99812 & 99914
BY DC COMICS (A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP)
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE APPOINTED PERSON
AGAINST A DECISION OF MR. OLIVER MORRIS DATED 19 DECEMBER 2012
BY THE APPLICANT
________________
DECISION
________________
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against a decision of Mr. Oliver Morris, acting for the Registrar,
dated 19 December 2012, BL O/504/12, taken in consolidated proceedings in which
he allowed two oppositions brought by DC Comics (A General Partnership) (“DC
Comics”) against two applications in the name of Adelphoi Limited (“Adelphoi”)
under Section 5(2)(b) of the Act. That made it unnecessary for Mr. Morris to decide
the other objections raised by DC Comics under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a) of the Act.
In the absence of a Respondent’s Notice, the appeal was therefore confined to the
Hearing Officer’s findings under Section 5(2)(b).
Standardof review
2. As to my approach to this appeal, Mr. Baldwin QC representing DC Comics, directed
me to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC in Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. Cadbury
UK Limited [2012] EWHC 2637:
“The approach to appeals from the Registrar of Trade Marks
14.By section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, an appeal from the decision by
the Registrar may be brought to an Appointed Person or to the court. Ms
Himsworth submitted that the nature and approach to such appeals had been
helpfully summarised by Daniel Alexander QC, sitting as a Deputy High
Court Judge in Digipos Store Solutions Group Ltd v. Digi International Inc
[2008] EWHC 3371 (Ch); [2008] RPC 24 at paragraphs [5] and [6] in which
he stated:
5. It is important at the outset to bear in mind the nature of appeals of
this kind. It is clear from REEF Trade Mark [2003] R.P.C. 5 (" REEF
") and BUD and BUDWEISER BUDBRÄU Trade Marks [2003] R.P.C.
25 ("BUD") that neither surprise at a hearing officer's conclusion nor a
To continue reading
Request your trial