IPO Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful – Estoppal: interpretation of agreements. – The applicants did not dispute that their class 14 specification would result in a likelihood of confusion but claimed that the opponents were estopped from opposition by reason of a pre-existing agreement between the parties. (The agreement had featured in a previous dispute between the parties – see Omega SA v Omega Engineering Ltd [2002] EWHA 2620 (Ch)).
Having examined the matter the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents were not estopped by reason of the agreement and the opposition to the class 14 specification succeeded accordingly.
Judges:
Mr D Landau
Citations:
[2008] UKIntelP o31308
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.457205