an unregistered trade mark EXCEL. The second hearing was in con- nection with an application for registration of the mark TEMPO in- corporated in a label, in Class 34 in respect of manufactured tobacco products, opposed by the proprietor of two registered trade marks comprising the mark CRAVEN A incorporated in two different labels. Both hearings were taken by Mr. J. L. G. MCLEAN, Senior Solicitor, whose decisions in both cases were pending at the end of the year.
109. There were two 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 BUTTERFINGER in Class 30 in respect of candy and confectionery. Mr. P. JACOBS, Assistant Registrar General, held that the mark was unacceptable for registration on two grounds, namely (1) that the word 'BUTTERFINGER' was descriptive of the character or quality of the goods and (2) that if the product does not contain any butter the use of the mark could be regarded as likely to deceive and its registration would therefore offend against section 12(1) of the Trade Marks Ordinance. The second hearing related to an application to register OH! DE LONDON in Class 3 in respect of perfumes, non-medicated toilet preparations, cosmetic preparations, dentifrices, depilatory preparations, toilet articles (not included in other classes), sachets for use in waving the hair, shampoos, soaps and essential oils. The hearing took place before Mr. MCLEAN, who reserved his deci- sion at the request of the applicant pending information from the applicant as to registration or application for registration of the mark in Australia and the United Kingdom.
110. The decision on last year's hearing concerning 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), was given on 22nd April 1970 by Mr. JACOBS, who held that the opposition failed, that the FROG & DEVICE mark should be registered in the name of the applicant, and that the costs of the opposition should be paid by the opponent on the usual scale subject to taxation.
111. In addition to the foregoing hearings, two interlocutory hearings took place, one in respect of the filing of further evidence pursuant to Trade Marks Rule 28, and one in respect of an extension of time in opposition proceedings. A decision was given in each case at the con- clusion of the hearing.
35
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.