Decision Nº O/669/19 from Intellectual Property Office - (Trade market), 24 October 2019
| Judge | Mr Phillip Johnson |
| Date | 24 October 2019 |
| Registration Number | WO0000001356340 |
| Administrative Decision Number | O/669/19 |
BL O/669/19
1
IN THE MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTRATION NUMBER 1,356,340 THE
REQUEST BY NICOLE HOCH TO PROTECT THE MARKS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF HEATHER
HARRISON (O/731/18) DATED 14 NOVEMBER 2018.
DECIS ION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal from the decision of Ms Heather Harrison, for the Registrar, dated 14
November 2018 (O/731/18) where she dismissed the request of Nicole Hoch to protect
an international trade mark with registration number 1,356,340 in the United Kingdom
and upheld the opposition of Dreams Ltd under section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act
1994. Ms Hoch appeals that decision.
2. The mark seeking protection is as follows:
3. The international registration covers “furniture” and “garden furniture” in Class 20. The
Opposition was based on three earlier trade marks all of which include the word
DREAMS. Two of the marks also include a stylised element whereas one is a simple
word mark. It was found below (Decision, paragraph 13), and it was accepted before
me, that if the Opposition did not succeed in relation to the word mark then it would
necessarily fail in relation to the two stylised marks. Accordingly, I will consider only
the word mark DREAMS (EUTM 11,424,538), which is registered in Classes 20, 24
and 35. Most pertinently, it covers “furniture” in Class 20. The goods are therefore
identical to those covered by the international mark.
Standard of review
4. The standard of appeal is by way of review. Neither surprise at a Hearing Officer’s
conclusion nor a belief that he or she has reached the wrong decision suffice to justify
interference in this sort of appeal. Before that is warranted, it is necessary for me to be
satisfied that there was a distinct and material error of principle in the decision in
question or that the Hearing Officer was wrong. The relevant principles were set out by
in TT Education Ltd v Pie Corbett Consultancy [2017] RPC 17 by Daniel Alexander
QC and more recently by the Supreme Court in Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS
To continue reading
Request your trial