A Mr David J Quigley had applied to register the marks in suit in October 1999 and registration had been effected in May 2000. In June 2000 the two marks were assigned to Bomar (UK) Ltd, of which Mr Quigley is a director. The applicant for invalidity stated that they had registered identical marks to those in suit in the Czech Republic in 1994. Contact had been made with Mr David Quigley in 1997 and his company David Quigley International Ltd had been granted exclusive distribution rights for England and Ireland for the sale of goods under the BOMAR and logo marks. Relations between the two firms broke down in 2000 and the applicant claimed that they had never given permission for Mr Quigley to register the marks in suit in the UK.
The applicant for invalidity stated that they had registered identical marks to those in suit in the Czech Republic in 1994. Contact had been made with Mr David Quigley in 1997 and his company David Quigley International Ltd had been granted exclusive distribution rights for England and Ireland for the sale of goods under the BOMAR and logo marks. Relations between the two firms broke down in 2000 and the applicant claimed that they had never given permission for Mr Quigley to register the marks in suit in the UK.
The applicant for invalidity stated that they had registered identical marks to those in suit in the Czech Republic in 1994. Contact had been made with Mr David Quigley in 1997 and his company David Quigley International Ltd had been granted exclusive distribution rights for England and Ireland for the sale of goods under the BOMAR and logo marks. Relations between the two firms broke down in 2000 and the applicant claimed that they had never given permission for Mr Quigley to register the marks in suit in the UK.
The position was further complicated by the setting up of a company in Asia by the applicant and Mr Peter J Quigley, a brother of David Quigley, and Mr Peter Quigley claimed that he had on behalf of this company authorized his brother to apply for registration of the marks in suit in the UK.
The Hearing Officer carefully considered the train of events and the relevant evidence filed by the two sides. He concluded that the applicant was the true owner of the marks in suit and that the application to register them in the UK by Mr David Quigley had been in bad faith. The applicant therefore succeeded with their application under Section 47(1) based on Section 3(6).
Section 60(3)(a) was not considered.
Citations:
[2003] UKIntelP o36003
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.455751
