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 >> STORZ (stylised) KARL STORZ - VIDEOENDOSKOPIE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o02208 (29 January 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o02208.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o02208, [2008] UKIntelP o2208 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02208
Result
Section 3(6): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent and applicant in these proceedings signed an Agreement in 1982 (addendum added in 1985) regarding the respective use by the two parties of the word STORZ. In general terms the applicant agreed to use the word STORZ with other words such as GERMANY, KARL and ENDOSCOPIE whereas the opponent would include such terms as USA, INSTRUMENT or STORZ (stylised) in its marks.
The opponent claimed that the mark in suit fell outside the terms of the agreement but this was disputed by the applicant. It stated that it has used the mark in suit since 1988 and further stated that the opponent’s predecessors had been advised about the mark in suit and had raised no objection. It had thus given defecto consent to the use and registration of the mark in suit.
It was agreed at the Hearing that if the Hearing Officer decided that the mark in suit fell within the terms of the agreement, which he did, the grounds under Sections 3(6) & 5(2)(b) would fall away. Thus opposition on these grounds failed.
As regards the matter of consent the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent and its predecessor had been aware of the applicant’s intention to use the mark in suit from 1985 onwards. No action had been taken to object to such use and the Hearing Officer decided that this amounted to consent.
