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 >> PHILOS (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2004] UKIntelP o22304 (28 July 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o22304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o22304
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
PHILOS (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2004] UKIntelP o22304 (28 July 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o22304
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/223/04
- Decision date
- 28 July 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr Richard Arnold QC
- Mark
- PHILOS
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant
- Charalambous Portelli
- Opponent
- Koninklike Philips Electronics NV
- Opposition
- Appeal to the Appointed Person against the decision of The Registrar’s Hearing Officer in opposition proceedings.
Result
Appeal against the Hearing Officer's decision under Section 5(2)(b), dismissed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the marks PHILIPS v PHILOS.
Summary
At first instance (see BL O/389/03) the Hearing Officer had found the opponent unsuccessful under all the grounds of opposition pleaded. The opponent appealed against the Hearing Officer’s finding under Section 5(2)(b); the Appointed Person determined the matter on the basis of the opponent's written representations in accordance with Rule 65(3)(a).
The opponent's principal contention was that the Hearing Officer had wrongly assessed the degree of similarity between the respective marks PHILIPS v PHILOS. To the Appointed Person, however, this amounted to no more than an invitation to reach a different conclusion from that of the Hearing Officer.
This was not a proper basis for an appeal. Moreover, the cases cited by the opponent (BL O/115/00, O/424/00 and O/237/03) as showing an inconsistency in approach were simply attempts by other hearing officers to apply the same principles to different facts. To "put it at its lowest" said the Appointed Person, the Hearing Officer's decision was "tenable".
The appeal was dismissed.