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 SUCCESS FOR SUCCESS NO SUCCESS FOR SUCCESS Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, April 19, 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:

Powered by Blogger.