Mark
Class
6. Kanebo SOIE
23
DE REINE
7. Kanebo SOIE
DE REINE
24
8. SUPACTIN
5
9. CEPIDAN
5
10, EATONGEL
5
Result of Hearing
Hearings adjourned at the request of the applicants, pending submission of applications for amendment of the mark and specification of goods in each case.
Objection to the registration of the mark as being in conflict with the 'SUPRADYN' trade mark was withdrawn, and registration of the mark was allowed.
Objection to the registration of the mark on the grounds of conflict with the 'CEPORAN' trade mark was maintained, and registration refused.
The hearing was adjourned sine die.
114. In addition
addition to the foregoing
the foregoing hearings,
hearings, an interlocutory hearing took place in respect of an extension of time in opposition proceedings. A decision to grant the extension was given at the con- clusion of the hearing.
115. The decisions on last year's hearings concerning (a) the application to register OH! DE LONDON in Class 3, and (b) opposi- tion proceedings in respect of the applications for registration if EXCELLO in Class 25 and of the mark TEMPO incorporated in a label in Class 34 were given during the year. The OH! LONDON mark was held by Mr. McLEAN to be acceptable for registra- tion subject to a disclaimer of the word 'LONDON'. The decision on the application for registration of EXCELLO opposed by the owner of an unregistered trade mark EXCEL was given on 5th November 1971 by Mr. MCLEAN, who held that the opposition failed and that the EXCELLO mark should be registered in the name of the applicant. The decision on the application for registration of the mark TEMPO incorporated in a label opposed by the proprietor of two registered trade marks comprising the mark CRAVEN A incorporated in two different labels was given on 21st May 1971 by Mr. MCLEAN, who held that the opposition failed and that the applica- tion should be allowed to proceed. On 13th December 1971 an appeal against the decision of Mr. MCLEAN in this case was heard in the Supreme Court by the Honourable Mr. Justice W. A. BLAIR-KERR, who in his written judgment dated 22nd December 1971 dismissed the appeal with costs and upheld the decision of the Regis- trar of Trade Marks.
38