BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> CONSEAL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o19700 (12 April 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o19700.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o19700 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o19700
Result
1. Request by opponents to substitutea successor in title as opponent. - In normal circumstances request would have been allowed
2. Opposition filed in the name of a non-existent company - Opposition not valid
Points Of Interest
Summary
With regard to the change in opponent in opposition proceedings the Appointed Person followed the decision of Pumfrey J in the BETAMAG Trade Mark case where he held that the Registrar had an inherent power to permit a successor in interest to pursue properly constituted opposition proceedings in lieu of the original opponent.
On 31 March 1997 The Thompson Minwax Company (the opponents and other companies in the group were merged with and into The Sherwin Williams Company. When the opposition was filed on 18 September, 1997 The Thompson Winwax Company had ceased to exist even though it was still recorded as the registered proprietor of the marks upon which the opposition was based. It was thus argued that it had been proper to file the opposition in the name of the registered proprietor and change the name of the opponent when the assignment of the marks to the new owners was recorded.
The Appointed Person decided on the basis of the papers before him, including submissions from the opponents’ agents, that the notice of opposition was intentionally filed in the name of a non-existent company and thus it was not a valid opposition. It was not therefore possible for the opposition to continue in the name of the new merged company The Sherwin Williams Company. Hearing Officer’s decision upheld.
