Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> MAGIC BALL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o29700 (1 August 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o29700.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o29700
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MAGIC BALL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o29700 (1 August 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o29700
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/297/00
- Decision date
- 1 August 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr S Thorley QC
- Mark
- MAGIC BALL
- Classes
- 30
- Applicants/Appellants
- Zeta Espacial SA
- Opponents/Appellants
- Societe des Produits Nestle SA
- Opposition
- Appeal to the Appointed Person in Opposition Proceedings
Result
Appeal Successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Admission of further evidence on appeal.
- 2. Costs against the Registrar : Appointed Person does not have power to award costs in respect of collateral errors in making entries in the Register.
Summary
Prior to the hearing the parties had come to an agreement whereby (inter alia) the opponents would not resist the appeal if the applicants excluded chocolate and ice cream from the specification. Accordingly, the opponents took no further part in the proceedings.
The applicants sought to introduce further evidence for the appeal, which the other side did not oppose. The Hearing Officer’s decisions (see BL O/123/99) had been based on evidence that the applicants intended to use the mark only on lollipops. The applicants now sought to clarify that point. The Appointed Person agreed to the admissions of the new evidence.
This new evidence persuaded the Appointed Person to allow the appeal in respect of the revised specifications.
A separate matter concerned an application by the applicants for costs against the Registrar, arising from the expense to which they had been put in getting an incidental error by the Registrar corrected. The Appointed Person ruled that he had power to award costs only against parties to the proceedings before him. The Registrar had at no stage been a party to those proceedings.