IPO Material date for determination of relative rights; in an appropriate case a reference to the ECJ may become necessary.
At first instance (see BL O/211/04) the Hearing Officer had found for the applicants under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(4)(a), in respect of period timers, and had ordered the removal of those items from the registrations. The registered proprietor appealed to the Appointed Person, contending that the Hearing Officer had erred in finding similarity in the goods because he had attached too little significance to the qualifications ‘all for scientific and/or industrial purposes’ in a sophisticated area of trade. He had also erred in holding that the relevant time for determining the parties relative rights was the date of the application for registration.
The Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s findings in respect of Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) but came to a different view about the material date. Since this latter issue was not crucial in this case the appeal was dismissed but the Appointed Person recorded her view that in an appropriate case a reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling may be necessary.
Judges:
Professor Ruth Annand
Citations:
O/227/05, [2005] UKIntelP o22705
Links:
Intellectual Property
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.456380