I read the mercer appeal and the following comment stood out:-
'The Complaint failed simply because the Panel was not satisfied that the Complainant's trade mark is as broadly known in the UK as the Complainant thinks it is'
If you analyse this statement you soon realise that there is no reasoning behind it....I think the experts have lost the plot.
Are they trying to say, in a round the houses way, that the complaint failed because the name mercer belongs to many therefore not one entity can have unequivocal rights to the name?
I really don't get it
Lee
'The Complaint failed simply because the Panel was not satisfied that the Complainant's trade mark is as broadly known in the UK as the Complainant thinks it is'
If you analyse this statement you soon realise that there is no reasoning behind it....I think the experts have lost the plot.
Are they trying to say, in a round the houses way, that the complaint failed because the name mercer belongs to many therefore not one entity can have unequivocal rights to the name?
I really don't get it
Lee