For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Tuesday, 19 April 2005

NO SUCCESS FOR SUCCESS


The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled today in Joined Cases T-380/02 and T-128/03,Success-Marketing Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM, another miserable restitutio in integrum case. In short, the applicant sought to register the word mark PAN & CO as a Community trade mark in various classes, including Class 30 (bread, flour preparations etc). It filled in the application form, including details of his representative's fax number. Chipita opposed, citing its earlier PAN figurative mark (below) and alleging a likelihood of confusion in respect of goods in Class 30.

The opposition succeeded for class 30, but the application was allowed for the other classes and the applicant was asked to pay the registration fee. Subsequently OHIM sent the applicant a copy of the Opposition Division's decision. The applicant complained that it had not been informed of the opposition proceedings, asked for its money back and also asked for the clock to be turned back a year, to before the opposition proceedings were commenced. The Board of Appeal rejected this application and the CFI agreed. Apart from the question of whether it had been brought outside the time limit for making such application, it was bound to fail once OHIM showed that notice of the Opposition Division proceedings was faxed to it and that the fax transmission appeared to be successful.

The IPKat wishes the application could have been refused on the grounds that it was dull, technical and boring.

Guide to safe fax here
Dealing with unwanted fax transmissions 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':