IPO In the parallel opposition proceedings (BL O/024/02) which has been reviewed in some detail the Hearing Officer concluded that as Ms Emanuel had assigned rights in this mark together with the goodwill in the business to the present proprietors, opposition under Section 3(3)(b) – which is the equivalent to Section 46(1)(d) in revocation proceedings – failed because any deception or confusion of the public would be short term and arose as a consequence of the assignment and the departure of Ms Emanuel from the business.
In these proceedings the same issue was involved – deception of the public. In these proceedings the relevant date was the date of the hearing (18 April 2002) whereas in the opposition proceedings the relevant date was 18 March, 1998. As the Hearing Officer had concluded in the opposition proceedings that any deception was likely to be short term until the public became aware that Ms Emanuel had left the business, he concluded that the registered proprietors must be in a better position some three years later in that the public would have become more aware that Ms Emanuel was no longer associated with them. Deception of the public was therefore less likely. The Revocation action based on Section 46(1)(d) thus failed.
Judges:
Mr M Knight
Citations:
2161562B, [2002] UKIntelP o42502, O/425/02
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
See Also – ‘Elizabeth Emanuel’: Application No 2009499 TMR 9-Jun-1998
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .
Cited by:
See Also – Elizabeth Emanuel (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 17-Oct-2002
IPO The opponent in these proceedings commenced to design and trade in clothing under the name EMANUEL about 1977. A shop was opened in Chelsea in 1986 but due to the breakdown of her marriage the shop closed in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.455311