关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决书 按司法管辖区搜索

特立尼达和多巴哥

TT001-j

返回

[2004] UKPC 28

This matter concerned a dispute as to the ownership of the trademark “Belmont” for tobacco products.

On November 29, 1978, Philip Morris Inc. applied for registration of the trade mark “Belmont” for “tobacco, whether manufactured or unmanufactured”. In 1983, for reasons relating to earlier rival applications for the same mark, the register refused the application until the rights of Philip Morris Inc. had been determined by a court.

As a result of an internal reorganization in the Philip Morris Group in 1987, Philip Morris Inc. assigned various assets to Philip Morris Products Inc. (“PM Products”). Subsequently, PM Products made a request to the registrar to be substituted as the applicant in relation to the application of November 29, 1978. The effect of this would be that if that application were to be granted, it would be granted to PM Products as the assignee of the application.

On August 13, 1990, Cigarrera Bigott SUC (“Bigott”) applied to register the same mark for “cigarettes, tobacco products and related goods”. This application was eventually accepted by the registrar.

Due to an administrative error, it was thought that PM Products was an assignee of ownership of the mark “Belmont”, although such ownership had never been granted to Philip Morris Inc. and therefore could not have been assigned. As a result, a Notice of Renewal was sent to PM Products, to which they responded by indicating that their application was still pending and that no certificate of registration had been issued.

On January 24, 1994, Philip Morris Inc. requested an extension for filing a Notice of Opposition to the application filed on behalf of Bigott. On the same date, the registrar responded by granting an extension, which was later retracted.

A dispute between the Appellant and the First Respondent regarding ownership was heard by the Assistant Registrar, who concluded that the Application of the Appellant

should be accepted for registration On appeal to the High Court, the PM Products argued that it was the registered proprietor of the mark and relied on the register entries concerning the assignment by Philip Morris Inc. as evidence. The court held that PM Products was the true owner of the mark. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

However, the Privy Council, on taking a closer look at the facts and evidence in the matter, found that the register contained no entry whatever of the actual registration of the mark, but only an entry of an assignment. Even if the entries in the register were to be taken as prima facie evidence that PM products was the owner of the mark, there was overwhelming evidence to show that it was not.

The appeal was allowed and the Privy Council directed that Bigott be registered as the owner of the mark “Belmont” in accordance with its application. PM Products was ordered to pay costs before the Privy Council and all courts below.

Case referred to: Tailby v Official Receiver (1888) 13 App Cas 523

Other authority referred to:

UK Trade Marks Registry Work Manual paragraph 30-141.