The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was primarily amongst surfers. The Hearing Officer conducted a ‘multi-factorial’ comparison, and rejected the opposition based on the likelihood of confusion. The appellant challenged mixed findings of fact and law.
Held: The appeal was allowed. When an appeal court considered setting aside a first instance decision, it must look to the several factors affecting the decision as they appeared in each individual case. The opposition had been rejected by the principal officer, then allowed by the judge. The judge should not have reversed the hearing officer on the section 5(2) issue. The hearing officer had not erred in principle, and nor was he clearly wrong. He had to make a multi-factorial comparison, evaluating similarities to reach conclusions about likelihood of confusion and a notional passing-off. He was experienced, and the Civil Procedure Rules do not diminish the respect shown to a hearing officers. But he did not hear oral evidence, and therefore an appellate court should show a real reluctance, but not the very highest degree to interfere in the absence of a distinct and material error of principle.
Lord Justice Robert Walker, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Clarke
Times 31-May-2002, [2003] RPC 5, [2002] EWCA Civ 763
Bailii
Trade Marks Act 1994 5(2) 5(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – South Cone Incorporated v Bessant, Greensmith, House and Stringer (a Partnership) trading as ‘Reef’; REEF Trade Mark ChD 24-Jul-2001
The applicants sought registration of the trade mark ‘Reef’ in connection with merchandising activities in classes 25 and 26 arising from their pop group of the same name. The challengers owned a trade mark ‘Reef Brazil’ in class 25 in relation to . .
Cited – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks ChD 15-May-2003
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Mastercard International Incorporated v Hitachi Credit (Uk) Plc ChD 8-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged award of a trade mark saying they were owners of many marks incorporating the word ‘Master’ associated with credit, and the applicants mark was too similar to its own.
Held: Applying Davidoff, the words can also be . .
Cited – Special Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and Another CA 12-Jan-2007
The defendants had opposed the grant of the trade mark which they were now accused of infringing. The claimants said that having failed at the opposition stage, they were now estopped from challenging the validity of the mark.
Held: It was not . .
Endorsed – Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd ChD 24-Jan-2007
Both parties used the name ‘Elle’ in their respective products, a women’s magazine, and handknitting yarns. They disputed the registration of a trade mark for the latter in the UK.
Held: The court endorsed the continuing applicabiity of the . .
Cited – Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc ChD 29-Jun-2007
Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted . .
Cited – Minimax Gmbh and Co Kg v Chubb Fire Ltd PatC 29-Jul-2008
Chubb sought to prevent the registration of a mark by the claimant arguing that its use would amount to passing off as against its own marks.
Held: There was insufficient evidence for the hearing officer to have found that Chubb had maintained . .
Cited – Whitehead v Bruce and Others CA 21-Mar-2013
The three defendants each appealed against apportionment of liability for serious personal injuries incurred in a road traffic accident. The first defendant a motor cycle driver, with the claimant his pillion passenger took suddent action to evade a . .
Cited – Actavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not . .
Cited – Actavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.172245