TIBOR GOLD ON THE HOOLIGAN/OLLY GAN DECISION

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
TIBOR GOLD ON THE HOOLIGAN/OLLY GAN DECISION TIBOR GOLD ON THE <i>HOOLIGAN/OLLY GAN</i> DECISION Reviewed by Unknown on Friday, February 04, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.