Decision Nº O/786/18 from Intellectual Property Office - (Trade market), 7 December 2018
| Judge | Mr Thomas Mitcheson QC |
| Registration Number | UK00003198785, UK00003199489, UK00003199490, UK00003199494, UK00003199495, UK00003199496, UK00003199497, UK00003199500, UK00003199501, UK00003199502 |
| Administrative Decision Number | O/786/18 |
| Date | 07 December 2018 |
| Court | Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom) |
BL O/786/18
IN THE MATTER OF CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS
OPPOSITION No. 000408660
IN THE NAME OF LOCH EMPLOYMENT LAW LIMITED
TO TRADE MARK APPLICATION No. 00003198785
IN THE NAME OF PHILIP ADAMSON HANNAY
AND OPPOSITION Nos. 000408758, 000408842-6, 600000600-1, 600000604
IN THE NAME OF PHILIP ADAMSON HANNAY
TO TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS No. 3199497, 3199489, 3199495, 3199496,
3199500, 3199502, 3199490, 3199494, 3199501
IN THE NAME OF LOCH ASSOCIATES GROUP LIMITED
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
DECISI ON
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Hearing Officer, Oliver Morris, dated 16
July 2018, in related and consolidated proceedings. It arises out of a dispute
between two firms of solicitors, Cloch Solicitors Limited (“Cloch”) and Loch
Associates Group Limited/Loch Employment Law Limited (“Loch”) over applications
by the latter for the trade mark LOCH in, amongst other classes, Class 45 for,
amongst other things, legal services. Although some of the oppositions were
brought by Philip Hannay, Cloch’s Managing Director, Mr Hannay confirmed at the
original hearing that Cloch stood by the oppositions brought in his name and would
be jointly liable for costs with him, so there is no need to distinguish between them.
2. One of the marks relied on by Cloch as part of its oppositions is an earlier registration
for LOCH in class 45. This was opposed by Loch on the grounds that it was applied
for in the context of these proceedings in bad faith contrary to s.3(6) Trade Marks
Act 1994 and also contrary to s.5(4)(a).
3. The Hearing Officer allowed the opposition to Cloch’s LOCH registration under
s.3(6). He then went on to dismiss the oppositions to Loch’s LOCH marks in classes
16, 35, 41, 44, 45 under s.5(2)(b) based on Cloch’s CLOCH marks registered in
1
To continue reading
Request your trial