cerned an application for registration of FROG & DEVICE in Class 25 in respect of swimming trunks, opposed by the proprietors of an already registered trade mark MAN ON FROG (device). The hearing was taken by Mr. P. JACOBS, Assistant Registrar General, whose decision was still pending at the end of the year.
105. There were eight hearings during the year on objections by the Registrar to applications for registration of Trade Marks. The first hearing was on an application to register CAIRN GORM in Class 33 in respect of alcoholic liquors. Mr. MCLEAN held that the words CAIRN GORM were in their ordinary signification a geographical name, and that the mark was, therefore, not registrable under Section 9(1)(d) of the Ordinance. The second hearing related to an application to register SILVA THINS in Class 34 in respect of tobacco products. It was held by Mr. MCLEAN that the word SILVA was a surname, that the word THINS was descriptive in relation to cigarettes, and that the mark was therefore not registrable. The third hearing was on an application to register H (device) in Class 12 in respect of all kinds of land vehicles, their parts and accessories. It was held by Mr. MCLEAN that there was insufficient evidence submitted to warrant a Part A registration. Registration was, however, allowed in Part B of the Register. The fourth hearing concerned an application for registration of DATASYNC_in Class 9 in respect of electro-optical devices, sound-recording cameras, sound recorders, data recording apparatus and systems, synchronizing pulse synchronizing systems for magnetic and optical sound-on-film recording systems, which had been refused registration under Section 9(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Ordinance on the ground that the mark had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. The hearing was adjourned to enable the applicant to submit further evidence of user of the mark in relation to the goods by way of Statutory Declarations and exhibits. The fifth hearing was on an application to register EMOFORM in Class 5 in respect of pharmaceutical prepara- tions for the treatment of sore gums, which was refused registration because of conflict with the EMAFORM trade mark of Pending Application No. 726C of 1965 in respect of medicinal and pharmaceu- tical preparations. The hearing came before Mr. MCLEAN, who held that there were no grounds upon which he could change the Registry's original decision. The sixth hearing was on an application to register a trade mark consisting of a design bearing a resemblance to the letter M in Class 9, which was refused registration in the absence of evidence
34
:
Page 40Page 41
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.