IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful. Section 3(1)(c): – Opposition failed. Section 3(2)(c): – Not considered. The opponent in this case is another chocolate manufacturer and trader in chocolate products. This case refers to the fact that another manufacturer Ludwig Schokolade of Germany manufactures a similar shaped product … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/286/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(2) – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b) – Opposition successful. Section 3(1)(c) – Opposition failed. Section 1(1)(d) – Opposition failed. Section 3(2)(c) – Not considered Section 32(2)(d) – Opposition successful. The opponent in this case is a major retailer of food products including confectionery. It files evidences from a German chocolate manufacturer … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/288/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful. Section 3(1)(c): – Opposition failed. Section 3(2)(c): – Not considered. The opponent in this case is another chocolate manufacturer and trader in chocolate products. It refers to the fact that another manufacturer Ludwig Schokolade of Germany manufactures a similar shaped product and … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/287/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful. Section 3(2)(c): Not considered. The opponent in this case is a German manufacturer of confectionary products including chocolate bars and it claimed to have provided chocolate bars of a similar shape and style from 1990 onwards to a number of UK firms … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/285/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

The originator of ‘Bach Flower Remedies’ had distributed them widely, and encouraged the use of the term as a general descriptive remedies. After the plaintiff had registered the names as trade marks, the respondent challenged the registration, and . .