• Snippets.....................

    Harar/Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe are coffee growing regions in Ethiopia. In order to control the use of, and to gain commercial benefit from, the use of these words, the Government of Ethiopia has filed EU and US trade mark applications for the words.

    The position in the US has been widely reported because of the allegation that Starbucks, the US coffee giant whose annual turnover is about three quarters of Ethiopia’s GDP, has been seeking to prevent the registration of the Ethiopian marks. This allegation is denied by Starbucks and certainly appears to be an exaggeration (at least). One of the Government’s US applications (for Sidamo) faced a relative grounds objection based on Starbuck’s earlier US trade mark application for Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo. However, once Starbuck’s application was abandoned in July 2006, this objection was withdrawn. This objection (against the Sidamo application) has now been replaced, however, by an absolute grounds objection that Sidamo is a generic term for coffee. According to press reports, this later objection was prompted by a letter of protest filed at the USPTO by the US National Coffee Association, of which Starbucks is a leading member. Similar, absolute grounds objections have also been raised against the US trade mark applications for Harar and Harrar.

    In the EU, the position is somewhat intriguing. The Ethiopian Government filed four CTM applications, for Harar, Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe, all in relation to coffee. Three of these applications have been granted, the exception being the application for Sidamo which was advertised in September 2005. This CTM application (for Sidamo) was opposed, not by Starbucks, but by a German company, neuform Vereinigung Deutscher Reformhäuser on the basis of an earlier German trade mark registration for Sesamo covering, amongst other goods, coffee. Not only did Starbucks not oppose this CTM application, but also, in August 2006, they surrendered their own CTM registration for Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo, which pre-dated the Ethiopian CTM application.

    If Starbucks are opposing the Government of Ethiopia’s attempts to protect their marks in the EU therefore, they are going an odd way about it.

    Whilst the writer sympathises with the aims of the Ethiopian Government in filing these CTM and US applications, one wonders whether better routes to protection of the terms would be designations of origin, geographical indications or certification/collective marks.



    A recent CFI case, L&D v Julius Sämann, involved the comparison of a figurative mark bearing a distinctive word mark with a figurative mark per se. The case also had some interesting comments on the establishment of a reputation in the EU.

    L&D applied for an animated character in the shape of a fir tree. The animation had a face, hands wearing gloves and feet adorned with shoes. In the middle of the tree were the words Aire Limpio. The goods claimed were in classes 3 and 5 and included “scented air fresheners”. The CTM application was opposed by Julius Sämann on the basis of, inter alia, an earlier CTM registration (no. 91991) for the silhouette of a fir tree.

    The Opposition Division rejected the opposition. The Board of Appeal overturned this decision in relation to the class 3 and 5 goods claimed. L&D appealed to the CFI.

    The CFI dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the visual and conceptual similarities between the two marks, both being stylised forms of fir trees, outweighed the phonetic difference, only one bearing a word mark (Aire Limpio).

    In their evidence, the opponent had claimed a particularly distinctive character in their CTM mark based on earlier use. Their evidence of use put forward was almost exclusively in Italy. It consisted of use of the registered mark bearing the word mark, Arbre Magique. The sales and advertising figures related to a two year period after the opposed CTM application was filed. The CFI accepted that evidence of use after the relevant date could point to a reputation being established before the key date. Even more intriguingly, they appeared to accept that use of a mark in just Italy could enhance the distinctive character of a CTM registration or at least the CTM registration in so far as it protected Italy.

    If this is a correct reading of the CFI’s view, then it could considerably assist CTM opponents who rely on earlier CTM rights, but can only establish significant use of the mark in one or two EU countries.



    The CTM system is a European system. It encompasses 27 European countries and 23 different languages. It is not an English language system for English speakers. This important point is perfectly illustrated when a CTM application is opposed on the basis of an earlier CTM registration. The comparison between the marks must be in all EU languages, not just English. This fundamental principle of CTM practice can sometimes lead to unexpected results, at least to English speakers. The recent CFI case between Armacell Enterprise and nmc is a good example and shows why caution should always be exercised when comparing marks for availability in the EU.

    Armacell filed a CTM application for the trade mark Armafoam in class 20. The application was opposed by nmc on the basis of an earlier CTM registration for Nomafoam covering identical or similar goods in class 20. The Opposition Division found in favour of the applicant ruling that the two marks were not similar enough to establish a likelihood of confusion. The Appeal Board took a different view on confusion of the marks and refused the application. Armacell appealed to the CFI.

    The CFI confirmed the Appeal Board’s decision. According to the Court, when comparing an earlier and a later CTM right, one had to consider the position in both English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries. In the latter, the word Foam would have no meaning and therefore both marks would be seen as invented words. It followed that, in non-English-speaking countries both marks had the same number of letters and syllables, the identical string –mafoam and no conceptual meaning. The only difference between the two marks was their prefixes Ar- and No-. This was not enough to differentiate between the marks in non-English-speaking countries. The CFI therefore accepted that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, Armafoam and Nomafoam, and rejected the CTM application.



    Steninge Slott (Steninge Palace) is a baroque palace situated near Stockholm in Sweden. Earlier forms of the palace date back to the 1200s. It is now famous for its cultural centre which promotes the fine arts and sells designer glass and crystal and porcelain products for household and indoor decoration.

    The owners of the palace filed a CTM application for Steninge Slott covering such designer products in class 21. The application was opposed by another Swedish company, Hammarplast AB, on the basis of their earlier Swedish trade mark rights in Steninge Keramik covering “Flowerpots made of ceramics” also in class 21.

    OHIM’s Opposition Division found in favour of Hammarplast. The applicant appealed and, in order to distinguish their products from those of the opponent, they excluded porcelain products from their specification. The goods comparison therefore became between “design products of glass and crystal” and “flowerpots made of ceramics”. This was enough to convince the Appeal Board that there was no likelihood of confusion on the part of the average Swedish consumer.

    This time Hammarplast appealed to the CFI. The Court rejected their appeal. First, they agreed with the Board of Appeal that the two sets of goods, although both in class 21, had a low degree of similarity. According to the Court, the applicant’s designer products were decorative, whilst the opponent’s flowerpots were functional. Flowerpots made of glass were said to be rare.

    Turning to the two marks, the Court found that the mark Steninge Slott would be associated with the palace, whilst the mark Steninge Keramik would be associated with ceramics coming from the town of Steninge. There was therefore a conceptual difference that would be known to Swedish consumers and would serve to distinguish between the marks, in spite of their visual and phonetic similarities. In view of this, as well as the difference between the nature of the two sets of goods, the opposition failed.



    It has been written that England and America are two nations separated by a common language. A recent case before the Appointed Person has served to prove the point.

    Almighty Marketing owned a trade mark registration for the mark Moo Juice covering milk and milk products in class 29. Milk Link sought to invalidate the registration under Section 47 of the 1994 Trade Marks Act. They argued that the mark was a synonym for milk and was therefore non-distinctive (Section 3(1)(b)), descriptive (3(1)(c)) and/or common to the trade (3(1)(d)). The evidence provided by Milk Link showed some use of Moo Juice in respect of milk in North America, but no more. The Hearing Officer found that the phrase Moo Juice was not in common parlance in the UK at the material date and therefore maintained the registration. He commented that “American and British English do diverge. In some cases, it may be necessary to view them as being different languages”.

    The Appointed Person (Mr. Hobbs QC) confirmed the decision. He noted that, in some areas, such as science and technology, there was a strong tendency for terminology to migrate from the US to the UK. However, this was not always the case. Given the circumstances, there was no need to leave the phrase Moo Juice free for use by others.



    Under UK trade mark law, a trade mark registration can be revoked on the ground of non-use, from five years after the date of grant. A UK proprietor can resist such an application (to revoke) if he can show use of the mark in the UK in relation to some or all of the goods registered. He can also prevent revocation if he can point to use of a mark, other than the registered mark, provided the mark in use differs from the registered mark in a way which does not alter the distinctive character of the registered mark. How different a mark in use can be to the registered mark was recently tested in a revocation action brought before the Appointed Person.

    The proprietors, Gail and Clive Boura owned a UK trade mark registration for Nirvana covering a broad range of cosmetics and toiletries in class 3. In response to the revocation action, brought by Nirvana Spa & Leisure, the Bouras filed evidence of use which showed sales of hair care preparations, moisturisers and skin preparations under the trade mark Nirvana Natural by a company called Nirvana Natural Ltd. The registered proprietors were majority shareholders in and directors of Nirvana Natural Ltd.

    The Hearing Officer found that since, in relation to the goods involved, the word Natural was purely descriptive, the use of Nirvana Natural counted as use of the registered mark Nirvana. Further, in the circumstances, use by Nirvana Natural Ltd was with the consent of the registered proprietors.

    The applicant to revoke appealed to the Appointed Person (Mr. Arnold QC). In his decision, Mr. Arnold conducted a comprehensive review of earlier UK decisions in this area, as well as the guidance issued by OHIM. Having done so, he accepted that the Hearing Officer’s decision was close to the line but that it was one he was entitled to make. The Appointed Person therefore dismissed the appeal.



    When Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple Computers, announced the launch of the company’s iPhone multi-functional mobile device in January, the word had hardly left his mouth, before Cisco Technology sued for trade mark infringement. Cisco owns long-standing US trade mark rights in the mark, the validity of which have now been called into question. To date, this trade mark clash has been confined to the US.

    What would be the position, however, if it spills over into Europe? In a word, complicated. Let us look at the position on the CTM register, for example. In chronological order, we have the following rights for iPhone marks in class 9.

    • CTM registration no. 796268 for IPHONE owned by Cisco Technology. This registration is dated 14th April 1998 and was granted about a year later. On 18th December 2006, a firm of German lawyers, CMS Hasche Sigle, filed a revocation action against this registration. Coincidentally – or perhaps not – this appears to have been the precise date that Cisco launched an iPhone product (according to reports on the internet). One wonders whether the power behind the CMS throne will eventually be revealed.

    • CTM application no. 2901007 for IPHONE owned by Apple Computer. This application is dated 21st October 2002 and is the subject of three oppositions filed by a Spanish telecoms company, Sociedad Promotora de las Telecomunicaciones en Asturias (SPTA), who own Telecable, a Japanese phone company, Aiphone Co, and two individuals, M.J. Funke and D. Bonk. SPTA’s opposition is based on an earlier Spanish trade mark right for IPHONO, Aiphone’s opposition is based on an earlier Irish trade mark registration for AIPHONE, whilst the third opposition is based on an earlier CTM registration for Typhoon.

    Interestingly, Apple’s CTM application was only allowed to proceed following a successful appeal (R149/2005-2) brought against the Examiner’s objections and decided in October 2005.

    • CTM application no. 3948098 for AI-Pi Iphone (stylised) owned by Catalana De Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora De Xarves. This application is dated 20th July 2004 and has been opposed by SPTA (see above), but not by either Cisco or Apple, even though it covers highly relevant goods and services.

    • CTM application no. 5341301 for iPhone owned by Ocean Telecom Services LLC. This CTM application is dated 27th September 2006, but claims priority from a Trinidad and Tobago trade mark application dated 27th March 2006. The application is under examination. CTM5341301 is the subject of some controversy amongst internet bloggers interested in the Apple and Cisco trade mark spat. It is alleged that Ocean Telecom Services is a front company for Apple. If it is not, then it is an astonishing coincidence that Apple filed two Australian trade mark applications for IPHONE on 19th September 2006, both claiming priority from the same Trinidad and Tobago trade mark application as CTM5341301. Watch this space on this intriguing CTM application.

    Elsewhere in the EU, one finds the following trade mark rights for IPHONE marks on the national and international register in class 9,

    • German trade mark application no. 30409862 for FREENET IPHONE, owned by freenet.de,

    • Hungarian trade mark application no. M024701 for IPHONE owned by Apple Computer,

    • International trade mark application no. 77007808 for IPHONE in the name of the mysterious Ocean Telecom Services. This International right designates 34 countries, and

    • Opposed UK trade mark application no. 2380997 for iphone owned by ICX Europe. This UK application has been opposed by Aiphone Co.

    As one can see, there is much to resolve before a winner or winners emerges with the trade mark rights to IPHONE. One assumes, however, that, given Apple Computer’s commitment to the mark, they will eventually obtain the necessary rights, even if this involves generous payments to others, either of money or of access to technology.



    Another well known mark whose owner has been facing difficulties clearing it for registration and use in the European Union is GMAIL. This is Google’s web-based e-mail service. Having been forced to rename the service Google Mail in the UK after a trade mark conflict with the financial research firm IIIR in 2005, Google now faces difficulties both in Germany and before OHIM.

    In Germany, Mr. Daniel Giersch, who owns a German trade mark registration for G-MAIL, uses his mark as the name of a same-day mail delivery service (see www.gmail.de). When Google launched its GMAIL service in Germany in 2004, Mr. Giersch brought a trade mark infringement action before the Hamburg District Court. This action was successful and Google were ordered to remove all references to GMAIL from its German service. This decision has been appealed by Google.

    Before OHIM, Google owns two CTM applications for GMAIL (CTM4316841 and CTM3753621), both of which have been opposed by Mr. Hiersch on the basis of his earlier German trade mark rights in G-MAIL. The latter CTM application has also been opposed by Pronet Analytics.com and the principals behind IIIR, both on the back of unregistered trade mark rights.

    In addition, the principals behind IIIR have filed their own CTM application (no. 4059507) for GMAIL which has been opposed by Google and Mr. Giersch. Finally, Mr. Giersch filed a CTM application (no. 4104543) for GMAIL which was withdrawn, presumably in the face of the opposition brought by Google against it.

    As in the IPHONE case, this story illustrates the paramount importance for a company like Google of choosing appropriate trade marks that are clear for use on a worldwide basis. Sometimes commercial imperatives can get in the way. However, more often than not, this eventually leads to the company having to pay considerably more for the freedom to register and use its trade mark than would otherwise have been the case.



    Under eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) policy, the owners of intellectual property rights can report the alleged infringement of their rights by anyone selling products at the eBay site. Once reported, eBay will delist the goods that are said to infringe. No analysis of the position is performed by eBay, they merely inform the seller of the removal and gives him details of the ip owner alleging infringement. A recent UK case (Quads 4 Kids v Campbell) suggests that the policy should be employed with care in this country.

    Mr. Campbell owned a Community design application (with deferred publication) for a children’s bike. He noted some bikes being sold by Quads 4 Kids (Quads) on eBay which he believed infringed his CD right. He therefore invoked the VeRO policy which led to Quads bikes being removed from the site.

    Quads sued Mr. Campbell for groundless threats of infringement proceedings, under the Community Design Regulation. They claimed that Mr. Campbell’s design was invalid on the ground that they (Quads) had sold their (allegedly infringing) bikes prior to the filing date of Campbell’s CD application.

    As a preliminary issue, the High Court had to decide whether Campbell’s use of the VeRO policy constituted a groundless threat. The Court found that the proper test in these circumstances was whether eBay would have understood that it could be subject to future infringement proceedings if it had not adopted and enforced their VeRO policy. This constituted a serious issue to be tried. Campbell’s inability to meet any future damages and the fact that Quads could potentially suffer damage as a result of their bikes being removed from eBay, meant that the balance of convenience lay with Quads. The Court therefore granted the injunction requested against Mr. Campbell.



    The Drifters are the longest running band in pop history with record sales to rival The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. They have been performing for over 50 years and have had over 50 hits worldwide.

    Most pop groups that perform for any period of time tend to have numerous changes in line-up, along with the occasional schism. The Drifters are no different, in fact they appear to have had more upheaval than most groups with nearly 60 members in various forms of the group.

    In the UK, the situation seems to have settled into two factions. The first is The Drifters UK Ltd, who are managed by Mr. Phil Luderman who has been involved with one form or other of the group since 1971, and the other is Treadwell Original Drifters, a company that is owned by the Treadwell family, who claim to have controlled The Drifters, legally and musically, since 1953.

    With two sets of Drifters due to tour the UK in 2007, it was likely that something had to give. It did. Late last year, the Treadwell family brought a passing-off action against the Luderman controlled group in the High Court.

    With the situation on the UK and CTM registers also to be resolved – both parties have UK trade mark applications for the group’s name (and The Drifters UK also has a CTM application) – this legal saga is likely to last rather longer than a line-up of the group.



    Under UK trade mark law, a trade mark applicant must either use his mark in the UK or have a bona fide intention to use the mark. If there is no use or intention to use then the application is vulnerable to opposition on the ground of bad faith (Sections 3(6) and 32(3)). This was the situation in a recent opposition (M.D. Cooper v. Milk Link) decided by the UK Trade Marks Office.

    Mr. Cooper applied for three UK trade mark applications in class 29 (and other classes) for the marks Moolicious, Mooshake and Moosotonic. The evidence put forward by the opponent showed that Mr. Cooper owned thirteen UK trade mark rights in addition to the three opposed applications and that he didn’t use any of the marks protected, but rather he sought to sell the rights to third parties. Mr. Cooper denied the allegation of non-use but forwarded no evidence of use to substantiate his denial.On this basis, the Hearing Officer decided that, at the date of filing his three “Moo” trade mark applications, he was not using the marks and he had no intention to use any of them. It followed, in the Hearing Officer’s view, that the Section 3(6) – bad faith – objection succeeded and he refused all three applications. Presumably, this finding puts the remainder of Mr. Cooper’s UK trade mark rights in jeopardy.



    The First Board of Appeal has recently clarified OHIM’s practice in relation to the registrability of single, unstylised letters. A German company, Enercon, had applied to register the letter E in respect of goods in classes 7, 9 and 19. The CTM Examiner had rejected the mark as non-distinctive and descriptive. Enercon appealed and the Appeal Board, whilst maintaining the objections because the letter E would be seen by the relevant public as an abbreviation of Energy or Electricity, commented that it was not enough simply to say an unstylised, single letter mark was not inherently registrable. In order to reject such a mark OHIM had to explain why it was unregistrable in relation to the goods or services claimed.

    It should be noted that these comments confirm an earlier appeal decision brought by Deutsche Telekom. In that appeal the unstylised letter T was accepted as inherently registrable in respect of a wide range of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

    Coca-Cola applied to register the trade mark IPSEI in respect of beverages in class 32. Perhaps not surprisingly, the application was opposed by their great rival PepsiCo on the basis of their earlier trade mark rights in PEPSI for identical goods. The opposition was pursued primarily under Section 5(2)(b) (similar mark/identical goods) and Section 5(3) (dilution/detriment) of the 1994 Trade Marks Act.

    The Hearing Officer found in favour of PepsiCo on both grounds. In relation to Section 5(2)(b), he was persuaded by the copious amounts of survey evidence put forward by the opponent, that there was a “strong capacity for IPSEI to generate an association with PEPSI in relation to soft drinks…that association points to more than simply an inconsequential bringing to mind and is indicative of a likelihood of confusion at the point of sale”.

    As far as Section 5(3) was concerned, he was again persuaded by PepsiCo’s evidence and found that “The uniqueness of PEPSI in the marketplace will be diluted by the presence of a similar mark that is shown to have a considerable capacity to spontaneously generate consumer expectation of a link with the well-known brand”.



    Those who haven’t been on Mars during the past few months will have noticed that Sir Paul McCartney and his second wife, Heather Mills McCartney, have been going through a very public and bitter separation and divorce. The writer tends to avoid reading about the gory details – look elsewhere for that – but in the interests of Make Your Mark readers, he is tireless in analysing that all important indicator of a happy (or unhappy) relationship, the trade mark position.

    When one keys in McCartney to the UK and CTM databases, one finds numerous trade mark rights for Paul McCartney, Linda McCartney, his first wife and guru of vegetarianism, and Stella McCartney, his second daughter and well-known fashion designer. There is even a CTM for Heather Mills McCartney Cosmesis which covers a device for making artificial limbs look more realistic.

    However, ageing rock stars don’t become billionaires by chance and certainly not by neglecting their trade mark position. Lo and behold, in April 2006, just before his separation from Heather went ballistic, Sir Paul’s company, MPL Communications, filed a UK and a CTM application for McCartney covering a wide variety of goods and services, including meat products! It’s bad enough to lose a large chunk of your personal fortune. It would be unbearable to lose commercial rights in your name. To date, there is no sign of Heather Mills (or Stella) opposing either of the McCartney trade mark rights.



    The European Union has introduced a new Regulation on geographical indications (GIs) and designations of origin (DOs) in the area of agricultural products and foodstuffs, including beer and non-alcoholic drinks, but not including wines or spirits.

    The new Regulation (510/2006) replaces Regulation 2081/92. It was introduced in response to Australian and US challenges to the old system, challenges that were largely upheld by the World Trade Organisation. The new Regulation introduces the recommendations made by the WTO in relation to (i) national discrimination, and (ii) the relationship between trade marks and GIs.

    In order to obtain a GI under Regulation 510/2006, it is no longer necessary either to have a reciprocal system of protection in the applicant’s country or, in relation to GIs outside the European Union, to have the applicant’s national Government take part in the process.

    Further, as far as trade mark/GI conflicts are concerned, the new Regulation is more favourable to trade mark owners. From now on, such a trade mark owner can continue to use his mark, provided it was applied for or in use before either the date of protection of the GI or, failing that, before 1st January 1996.

    If you require further information on Regulation 510/2006, contact the trade mark department at Jenkins.



    For years, the Royal Navy has been cutting its cloth to match its diminished strength. Fewer aircraft carriers, fewer warships and fewer seamen has become the order of the day. However, now they may have found a way to turn the tide, merchandising. The Royal Navy has protected all of its key brands, such as the White Ensign Logo, the crown and anchor badge and the badge of the Fleet Air Arm, with a view to licensing their use for high quality products ranging from cosmetics to assault ladders and from stockings to submarines including torpedo launch systems.

    Not everyone is enamoured with the idea. One serving officer was quoted as saying “The Navy isn’t a cool brand. Audi is. If the Navy wants to be cool, they should put the First Sea Lord on the Jonathan Ross Show”.



    The England cricket team has been touring Australia for the past three months. They have been dismally unsuccessful. In spite of this, they are followed everywhere by a group of fanatical/boorish (depending on your point of view) supporters who style themselves as The Barmy Army.

    Now The Barmy Army started off as a disorganised group of cricket followers who were always there when England played and inevitably lost. However, over the past few years, they have got organised and, some of them at least, have started to make money out of the idea. Indeed, the Barmy Army Ltd owns trade mark registrations in the mark and sells t-shirts and the like.

    It is these commercial activities that have brought The Barmy Army into conflict with the upper echelons of the cricket establishment, namely the Marylebone Cricket Club. The MCC is the guardian of everything that is sacred in cricket, including The Ashes, the small trophy for which England and Australia compete every three years or so and Australia nearly always wins. The MCC takes its responsibility so seriously in this regard that they have not only filed trade mark applications to protect The Ashes but they have also threatened The Barmy Army with legal action unless they remove the phrase The Ashes from their “Barmy Army” merchandise. This unexpected bouncer has far from unsettled our heroes. The Barmy Army claims to have used The Ashes on their merchandise since 1994, a full eleven years before the MCC filed their CTM application, and therefore to have the superior trade mark rights. We shall see.

    After the events of the past twelve weeks, quite why any England supporters would want to be constantly reminded of The Ashes, by wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase, is as imponderable as one of Shane Warne’s googlies.



    In last autumn’s Make Your Mark, we reported on the Advocate General’s opinion in Bovemij Verzekeringen NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (EUROPOLIS, Case C-108/05).

    The core issue was whether an otherwise non-distinctive or descriptive mark can acquire distinctiveness sufficient for national registration based on use in part of an E.U. member state only.

    The ECJ has now confirmed that evidence of acquired distinctiveness in part of a member state may indeed be enough—provided the objection only applies in that part of the member state. This may occur where there are distinct linguistic communities within a member state, as in the Benelux, so that a mark may be regarded as non-distinctive in one such community, but distinctive elsewhere.

    If the objection is relevant throughout a member state, evidence of acquired distinctiveness throughout the member state will be required.

    For the impact of this sensible decision, see Make Your Mark, Autumn 2006.



    After more than 150 years as the Patent Office, the UKPO is expected to change its name to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office in April or May 2007.

    This change reflects the diversity of IP rights that make up the UKPO’s practice. We applaud this forward-thinking move.

    The UKPO is also committed to abolishing examination of U.K. trade mark applications and Madrid designations for conflicts with prior rights.

    The UKPO will continue to search for such rights, but in conformity with OHIM it will only refuse applications based on them where opposition is filed. The proposed legislation is under consultation and the changes are expected to come into force in Autumn 2007. We will report on the shape the changes will take nearer the time.

    Meanwhile, brand owners with interests in the U.K. are strongly advised to subscribe to watching services here: the UKPO will no longer be watching for them.