More on Baronial bottles

Following a swift skim, Colm McKernan (Origin) has been able to lighten the IPKat's linguistic darkness (see earlier post). He says:

"Basically it seems to be a procedural issue. The Spanish were late with their evidence of prior use at OHIM.

* January 2001 Rothschild applies for the mark;

* October 2001 Spanish oppose on grounds (a) risk of confusion; (b) prior use;

* 28 January 2002 the Spanish submitted some documents showing prior use, but critically only one document showing recent use — a sample of a label from 2000;

Rothschild's opposes the prior use on grounds that the Spanish had failed to show serious use;

* OHIM Oppositions gave the Spanish until September 2002 to file evidence of recent serious use;

* They filed nothing before November 2002 — OHIM threw out their case against registration;

* January 2003 they finally filed proof of serious use;

* They then appealed. The Appeal Board held, you fluffed the deadline, tough.

The Spanish then appealed to the Court of First Instance. The bottom line in the CFI's judgment was that the Board of Appeal should have allowed the new evidence because it was within its deadlines: it's supposed to take an appreciation of the entire case. Decision annulled and remanded for re-review in light of the admissible evidence".

As Colm adds, this seems slightly dodgy: it basically means that you can fluff a deadline in an Opposition, then reopen the evidence before the Board of Appeal.

Many thanks, Colm!
MORE ON BARONIAL BOTTLES MORE ON BARONIAL BOTTLES Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 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.