VSESOTUZNOJE EXPORTO—IMPORTNOE OBJEDINENIE “RAZNORPORT” TRADE MARK APPLICATION (NO. 12877) [1966] GLR 247
16 March 1966 · OKYERE-DARKOH J · ≈ 2 min read
[1966] SLR (HC) 45Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
Division: HIGH COURT, ACCRA
Date: 16 MARCH 1966
Before: OKYERE-DARKOH J.
CASE REFERRED TO
In re Clement & Cie.’s Trade Mark [1900] 1 Ch. 114; 16 R.C.P. 173.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
APPLICATION for registration of the trade mark “Palma.”
COUNSEL
N. Kudjawu for the applicants.
R. Korsah for the opposers.
JUDGMENT OF OKYERE-DARKOH J.
The opponents are the registered proprietors of the trade mark No. 5243 consisting of a label bearing the words “Pall Mall” effected on 23 April 1949 in class 45 in respect of cigarettes. It was contended by the opponents that the propounded mark so nearly resembles their registered trade mark as to be calculated to deceive and therefore it should not be accepted for registration. It was submitted that the propounded mark in relation to matches is liable to cause confusion or deception or both and would facilitate the passing off of the applicants’ goods as the opponents product sold under the “Pall Mall” label. It was finally submitted that the word “Palma” has geographical significance and hence the mark is [p.248] of [1966] GLR 247 not entitled to registration under the terms of section 9 (4) of the Trade Marks Ordinance.1 After careful consideration of the submissions made by both learned counsel and after going through the affidavit in support of the opposition and the counter statement of the applicants I do not think that the use and registration of the mark applied for under No. 12877 by the applicants in relation to the goods in respect of which the application is made would be calculated to deceive or cause confusion contrary to the provisions of the Trade Marks Ordinance. “The words `geographical name’ are not equivalent to the `name of any place,’ and a word does not become a geographical name simply because some place on the earth’s surface has been called by it.” See Kerly on Trade Marks (8th ed.) at p. 95. In In re Clement & Cie.’s Trade-Mark2 it was held that “St. Raphael” was not geographical, as it was not shown that the words were adopted with the intention of referring to any place of that name. Similarly in this case here is no evidence that the propounded mark is connected with goods emanating from Palma.
For these reasons I order that the registrar do register the mark “Palma” as applied for. There will be 25 guineas costs inclusive of counsel’s fee against the opposers.
DECISION
Application granted.
S. K. T.
