Category: Intellectual Property

Andrew Webb v Sandra Agnes Mcgriskin (Patent): IPO 6 Nov 2000

Mr Webb was a producer of furniture, in particular seating. Ms McGriskin was an Alexander Technique teacher from whom, inter alia, Webb had taken lessons in the technique. On seeing how much easier it was to stand out of a rocking chair that he kept in his workshop, she commissioned a stool on rockers for use in teaching the technique. Subsequently, McGriskin applied for a GB patent in respect of the stool in her sole name. In an interim decision dated 3/02/00 it was decided that there was joint inventorship and proprietorship. In a further decision dated 3/04/00, simple joint ownership was decided. Br />However, Ms McGriskin failed to file her portion of the renewal fees in a timely manner, and despite repeated reminders she failed to so until the fourth extended month. Mr Webb asked for the order to be varied. It was decided that the patent would proceed in his name alone as sole proprietor, but that Ms McGriskins rights would be safeguarded by the award of an irrevocable, royalty-free licence.

Citations:

[2000] UKIntelP o41000

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453988

Barry Richardson (Patent): IPO 3 Oct 2000

The application relates to a device said to be propelled by movement of a rotating mass or masses. The HO held that the application would contravene Newtons third law of motion, and therefore refused the application as not having industrial applicability.

Judges:

Mr B Westerman

Citations:

O/368/00, [2000] UKIntelP o36800, GB9710345.1

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453955

Loaded (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 22 Sep 2000

At first instance (see BL O/009/00) the Hearing Officer had found the opposition to have failed on all points. The opponents appealed; they maintained their oppositions under Sections 5(3) and 3(6).
Under Section 5(3) the Appointed Person found that the matter came down to the issues of reputation and unfair advantage.
For these, he decided, the burden of proof lay on the opponents, quoting AUDI-MED trade mark [1998] RPC 863 with approval.
Turning to an item in the evidence of reputation the Appointed Person found that it supported a claim to considerable reputation at the relevant date, contrary to the findings of the Hearing Officer who had dismissed the matter because it was written after the relevant date although it confirmed an earlier reputation.
The Appointed Person then considered the matter of detriment/unfair advantage.
‘Origin confusion’, he decided, had not been proved on the facts of the case. He had to consider the extent to which there would be an association and then consider the extent to which that association could lead to detriment or unfair advantage. The trade marks being the same, the possibility of association was manifest. Before the Appointed Person it was contended that there would be dilution, blurring, tarnishing and inhibition, this latter being a new category. Use of clothing in promotion would be fettered and hence there would be detriment. Registration of the mark applied for could also affect the decisions of advertisers in the magazine.
This was a ‘borderline case’ but on balance the Appointed Person found that there would be detriment to the earlier mark.
The Section 3(6) ground failed, however, as it had in the earlier decision.
In the result the appeal was successful under Section 5(3).

Citations:

[2000] UKIntelP o45500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453944

David Page (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 20 Sep 2000

cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition

Judges:

Mr M Reynolds

Citations:

OPP 47998 and 48071, 2117243A, 2117243B, [2000] UKIntelP O34600

Links:

PO, IPO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – David Page (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 4-Jun-1999
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .
See Also – David Page (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 3-Feb-2000
IPO Opposition. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453938

Global Domestic Products Ltd and S Panagne v Pifco Ltd (Patent): IPO 22 Aug 2000

PO Patents – Inter Partes Decisions
In a request for the Comptroller to consider whether she was minded to decline to deal with an inventorship and entitlement dispute, a number of reasons were put forward by the proprietor for the exercise of the Comptrollers discretion. Whilst no single one of the reasons was good enough in itself, the HO took account of the referrers agreement and the fact that if the Comptrollers discretion was not granted in the way requested, then the proprietor was likely to appeal, thus increasing both parties costs. The request was granted.

Judges:

Mr G Bridges

Citations:

O/303/00, [2000] UKIntelP o30300

Links:

PO, PO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453903

Magic Ball (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 1 Aug 2000

cw Appeals to the Appointed Person Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition

Judges:

Mr S Thorley QC

Citations:

OPP 46130, 2100056, [2000] UKIntelP o29700

Links:

PO, IPO, Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Magic Ball (Trade Mark: Revocation) IPO 17-Mar-1999
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Revocation . .
See Also – Magic Ball (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 29-Apr-1999
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453911

Kaiser v Morgan and Schmidt: IPO 14 Aug 2000

PO Patents – Inter Partes Decisions – In an EP patent that had been found bad for lack of novelty and obviousness (see Decision O/147/97) an opportunity for amendment was given. When the applicant tried to take advantage of this opportunity, the proposed amendments were opposed, initially by Morgan only and subsequently by both Morgan and Schmidt. At a hearing where the substantives points were heard in full, the opponents attempted to introduce evidence in case of an appeal. The HO ruled that this was impermissible (in view of a number of recent precedents which suggested that conduct of the patentee was no longer a permissible consideration in deciding discretion) but agreed that the time period for any appeal from this decision should extend beyond the date of a Court of Appeal case dealing with this point (O/334/99). At a similar date, a decision issued allowing the amendments from the point of view of substantive law (O/377/99).
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal ruled that conduct of the patentee was still a factor to be taken into account, and a further hearing was arranged to consider this point specifically. At the hearing it was decided that, although the patentee had had no reason to suppose his patent was invalid before the date of the revocation hearing in 1997, nevertheless he had attempted to assert the patent some 4 years earlier and had not disclosed this. The patent was duly revoked.

Judges:

Mr G Bridges

Citations:

[2000] UKIntelP o27900, O/279/00, EP0329959

Links:

PO, Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 75

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453904

Innovata Biomed Ltd (Patent): IPO 10 Aug 2000

Two official reports had raised objections that SPC application SPC/GB/99/018 did not meet the requirements of Art.3(d) of the Council Regulation. No response was received. A final letter was sent stating that in the absence of a response within a specified time period the comptroller would reject the application under Art.10(2) of the Regulation. No response was received and so the hearing officer ordered that the application be rejected.

Citations:

[2000] UKIntelP o27400

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453906

Every Idea Safely Delivered (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) O-275-00: IPO 17 Jul 2000

IPO Appeals to the Appointed Person Decisions – Trade Marks

Judges:

Mr S Thorley QC

Citations:

2183690, [2000] UKIntelP o27500

Links:

PO, IPO, Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994

Citing:

See Also – Every Idea Safely Delivered (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) O-380-99 IPO 15-Oct-1999
cw Ex Parte Decisions – Trade Marks
IPO Ex Parte. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.453879