For the whole decision click here: o18803
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
At first instance (see BL O/231/02) the Hearing Officer had found for the opponents under Section 5(4)(a) in respect of footwear; the remainder of the opposition was dismissed. The applicants appealed to the Appointed Person against the finding under Section 5(4)(a). The evidence of use, they contended, was not evidence of the requisite reputation. The absence of any data regarding volume or value of sales and dates made it difficult or impossible for a tribunal to find in favour of the opponents, it was submitted. The Appointed Person reviewed the evidence and admitted that he had found it a very difficult case; the evidence was not overwhelming. However, the question was not whether he would have reached a different conclusion had he been the hearing officer, but whether under the relevant criteria he should interfere with the decision. Authority required him to show a reluctance to interfere. In the result he dismissed the appeal.