For the whole decision click here: o06807
Result
Appeal successful; Hearing Officer’s decision set aside.
Points Of Interest
Summary
At first instance (see BL O/059/06) the Hearing Officer had ruled that the evidence of use supplied by the registered proprietor had not established that that use was ‘by or with the consent of the proprietor’. The application for revocation had succeeded accordingly. The registered proprietor appealed to the Appointed Person.
The Appointed Person found the Hearing Officer wrong in that he did not allow the parties to clarify these doubts by means of written submissions. By raising and ruling on these matters himself he had taken too much of the conduct of the case into his own hands.
The Appointed Person proceeded to a detailed analysis of the present state of the law in relation to the question of control of quality by the registered proprietor over any goods marketed by another party with his consent.
In the result the Appointed Person found that the Registrar had to be satisfied that the use had been with the proprietor’s consent but it was not necessary for him to be satisfied that that use had been effectively controlled.
The Hearing Officer’s decision was set aside and the Registrar was to proceed on the basis of the more limited specification which had been considered by the Hearing Officer.