British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
OKO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o36102 (29 August 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o36102.html
Cite as:
[2002] UKIntelP o36102
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
OKO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o36102 (29 August 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o36102
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/361/02
- Decision date
- 29 August 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- OKO
- Classes
- 01
- Applicant
- Linseal International Ltd
- Opponent
- Hokochemie GMBH
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b), 5(4)(a) & 3(6)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
-
1. See Hearing Officer's provisional decision dated 28 June 2001 ( BL O/282/01).
-
3. See the Appointed Person’s decision dated 23 June 2003 (BL O/195/03). In view of agreement between the parties it was requested that the decisions issued on 28 June 2001 (BL O/282/01) and 29 August 2002 (BL O/361/02) be discharged; appeal by applicants to Appointed Person withdrawn and opponents opposition to applicants trade mark Application No 2204593 withdrawn. Also agreement re costs.
-
2. Hearing Officer’s decision of 28 June 2001 appealed to the Appointed Person. Appeal stayed pending outcome of associated invalidity proceedings. ( BL O/116/03).
Summary
In his decision dated 28 July 2001 the Hearing Officer found the opponents opposition to be successful under Section 5(2)(b). That finding had been provisional in the context that the opponents pending earlier right was under opposition by the applicants.
The opponents earlier right has now been registered with no impact on their Class 1 specification. In this decision the Hearing Officer confirms his earlier findings and awarded costs to the opponents.