The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Friday, 4 February 2005


Friend of the IPKat Tibor Gold writes on the recent CFI HOOLIGAN/OLLY GAN decision:

In an otherwise humdrum CFI decision ruling on an opposition regarding competing marks HOOLIGAN and OLLY GAN for identical goods in cl. 25, two things stand out for me:

* Thanks to the activities of our testosterone and alcohol-fuelled activities of segment of the British population the CFI finds that the word ‘hooligan’ was well known in France and Portugal (para 60: o tempora, o mores); but perhaps more importantly there is an extended analysis of the nature of an appeal to the CFI and what may or may not be argued before it for the first time (para 22).

* In the particular case the applicant did not submit observations before the BoA and OHIM argued before the CFI that as a consequence the applicant was disabled from presenting arguments relating eg to proof of use issues and similarity of products. The CFI held that OHIM was wrong on this because such ‘matters were part of the legal and factual framework before the Board’, having been part of the decision of the Opposition Division (para 25). By contrast, arguments raised for the first time before the CFI by the applicant inter alia on high reputation and high distinctiveness were ruled inadmissible.
The IPKat, who is somewhat ashamed on behalf of the British, says Thanks Tibor!

Generic hooligans, not to be confused with the branded variety
More hooligans here and here

No comments:

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':