Posts Tagged ‘Trade Mark’

A relative lack of movement in Ireland

Friday, July 9th, 2010

Ireland’s Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation has published the conclusions from its enquiry into whether the Irish Patent Office should continue to examine trade mark applications to see whether there are relative grounds for refusing the registration.  A trade mark may be refused on relative grounds if it is identical or similar to an earlier trade mark. All applications are also examined to see whether the mark should be rejected on absolute grounds – i.e. because there is something inherently wrong with the mark, for example if it is not distinctive. 

Applications for a European Community Trade Mark, and (since October 2007) for a UK trade mark, are not subject to examination on relative grounds. Instead, existing trade mark owners are notified of applications that may conflict with their registered, and given the opportunity to object – meaning that UK and Community trade mark owners must police applications. 

The UKIPO changed the system of registration to make it more similar to the CTM system – but it is clear that the system in Ireland is easier both for smaller businesses that cannot afford to invest heavily in policing their portfolio, and for consumers, who have a better guarantee of the origin of their goods.

Giles Parsons

Posted by Giles Parsons
0121 237 4557
gparsons@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Consent under a Co-existence Agreement is a Bar to Opposition

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

The High Court has upheld a decision that consent given under a co-existence agreement to the registration of a trade mark for certain goods was a bar to opposition on relative grounds, citing section 5(5) of the Trade Marks Act.

Omega Engineering argued that Omega SA had no right to oppose its application to register OMEGA in respect of certain goods since it had expressly agreed not to do so under a co-existence agreement between the two parties. Omega SA argued, amongst other things, that the co-existence agreement was irrelevant to an objection made on relative grounds. Mr Justice Arnold disagreed stating that it would be unjust if a party who had consented to the registration of a trade mark could successfully oppose the application to register it.

This has to be the right decision otherwise the usefulness of co-existence agreements would be severely threatened.

Sara McNeill

Posted by Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Why you should ensure your brands are held by a single, continuing entity

Friday, March 5th, 2010

The Sugababes show us how ownership could go round round

Heated rows between pop artists are often as frequent and as transient as their hits. The ownership of the groups’ names and the right to perform under a particular trade mark often provide the backdrop to disharmony. Just ask Liberty X, The Nolan Sisters or The Rubettes among others.

And so the ever changing face of the pop group Sugababes has perhaps unsurprisingly led to potential disputes about the right to use the brand SUGABABES. The word on the street is that former band member Keisha Buchanan, who was a founder member of the group, appears to be on the verge of suing the current line up of the ‘babes to prevent their use of the brand going forwards. Meanwhile another founder (and former) member Mutya Buena has filed a Community Trade Mark application for the SUGABABES trade mark.

Does this mean we are about to see a reunion of the founder members of one of the UK’s most successful girl bands?

The potential disputes which may follow between the current line up and the original group members demonstrate the clear advantages of having a single consistent entity owning the registered and unregistered rights to a brand, particularly where, as in the case of a pop group, the nature and personnel of the external face of the entity changes frequently. Question is though, which girl will be first to push the button?

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)