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 >> CHINA WHITE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o18503 (30 June 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o18503.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o18503
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CHINA WHITE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o18503 (30 June 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o18503
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/185/03
- Decision date
- 30 June 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr S P Rowan
- Mark
- CHINA WHITE
- Classes
- 32, 33
- Applicant
- Karl Harrison
- Opponent
- Teton Valley Trading Company Limited
- Opposition
- Award of Costs
Result
Award of costs: - Costs awarded to the opponents.
Points Of Interest
- In the event that the proceedings are appealed to the court of appeal, that court will take account of costs awarded by the Registrar.
Summary
In his decision dated 2 August 2002 (BL O/316/02) the Hearing Officer had decided that the opponents failed in their ground under Section 5(4)(a) – Passing Off – but had been successful in respect of their Section 3(6) ground. As the proceedings had been complicated and involved interlocutory hearings to deal with various matters including the filing of additional evidence and the raising of a new defence by the applicants, both parties had requested the opportunity to make written submissions re the award of costs. Subsequently, the opponents filed submissions within the time allowed but the applicants merely appealed the decision to the High Court. The case has now been heard and it would appear that the applicants are considering an appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, at the request of the Registrar they filed submissions re costs in March of this year.
The Hearing Officer decided that on the basis of events surrounding the interlocutory hearings and the decisions handed down, that the applicants should be awarded £529 for the first hearing and that both parties should bear their own costs as regards the second hearing.
With regard to the substantive decision the Hearing Officer took account of the fact that the opponents had failed on their Section 5(4)(a) ground but he also increased the award as regards the new defence utilised by the applicants of ex turpi causa. In the event he awarded the opponents the sum of £1,600, marking a total of £2,129.