A guide to assist in planning and arguing cases before the Trade Mark Tribunals Section of the UKIPO and the Opposition and Cancellation Divisions of OHIM

1. A Guide to Better Arguments, Evidence and
Advocacy before the UKIPO and OHIM
AaronWood
Founder
Wood IPLimited
Version1– December2015
© AaronWood 2015
The purpose of thiswork isto increase the knowledge andskillsof usersof the UK Intellectual
PropertyOffice andCommunityTrade MarkOffice (OHIM) tribunals,bothprofessional usersandlay/
unrepresentedparties. Asaresult,youare free toshare thiswork (includingcopyingand
redistributingthe wholeoranypart of the work) and use the material fornon-commercial purposes
subjecttoattribution. Youmay alsouse and share the work forcommercial purposesinproviding
legal services,andmayuse the whole oranypart of it withinyourowncommercial publicationsor
the provisionof trainingtothirdpartiessubjecttosuchpublicationsortrainingbeingavailablefreely
and at no cost to users. For all othercommercial usespleasecontactthe author.
Please note thatnone of thisguide representslegal advice andthatseparate advice shouldbe
soughtinorder to tailoranyof the material withinthisguidetoanyparticularsetof facts.

2. Introduction
Disputesbetweenthe ownersof trade marksare time-consuming,sometimescomplex andoften
costly. Both the UK IntellectualPropertyOffice andthe Office forHarmonisationinthe Internal
Market (referredto inthisworkas “OHIM” andbeingthe bodyresponsibleforthe registrationof
EuropeanCommunityTrade Marks and the handlingof disputespertainingtothe registrability of
CommunityTrade Marks) have procedureswhichmirrorthe structure of traditional legal disputes,
but bothhide withinthemtrapsforthe unassumingandhave restrictedregimesforrecoveryof the
time spentonthe case. Asa resultof this,itis easy forthe costs to extendfarbeyondthatwhichis
recoverable,orforthe particularitiesto surprise aparty.
It isalso the case that an increasingnumberof partiesare unrepresented,havingfiledapplications
withoutprofessional assistance orhaving usedbusinessesthatcanhandle the administration
connectedwithfilingatrade mark applicationandprocessingit throughtoregistration,buthave no
abilitytohandle disputeswhentheyarise. Forthe unrepresentedparty,theseproceedingsare
unusual andmistakesare easilymade;forthe representedpartyonthe otherside,the natural
extensionof fairnesstothe unrepresentedpartybythe authoritiescanbe frustratingsince itmay
add time andcost.
The purpose of thisguide isto assist all users. It ismy hope that itwill be of service tostakeholders
of all kinds. Ihope it will provideaframeworkforunderstandinghow topresentacase forthose
withno legal training,andsome tipsof how topresenta case in a more cost-effective mannerto
those withsome experience beforethese bodies.
If you have benefittedfromthisdocumentasan IP-specialistthenmymainrequesttoyouisthat
youshare it. Please make itavailable tothose whomightbenefit,includingunrepresentedparties
youmay appearagainst. Whilstitmay seemstrange to assistthe otherside byprovidingthemwith
a guide as to howtheymay improve theircase,byreadingandunderstandingthe principlesand
rulesitis far more likelythattheywillpresenttheircase ina coherentandorganisedfashion,and
that theywill onlyrelyuponrelevantevidence.
The net resultof thisisa case whichiseasier forall to understandandevidence whichcanbe readily
understood,reducingthe (otherwiseunrecoverable)costtoyour ownclient. Youwill see inthe
copyrightnotice onthe title page that I have givenquite openrightstoreproduce thisworkif it
helpsyou – I justask that youattribute the workand don’tseektotake advantage of itfor direct
personal gain,since to doso underminesthe entire purpose of thisguide.
Thisguide focusesonthe priorplanningof cases,the presentationof the initial arguments,the
marshallingandpresentationof evidenceandthe presentationof final submissions(betheyoral or
inwriting). Itispossible tolooksimplyatthe topicsinisolation,butinordertounderstandthe
underlyingissuesIrecommendthatsome time isspentreadingthe firstchapter, whichcovers
rhetoric. By understandingthe principlesof rhetoricyouwillunderstandwhysome of the later
suggestionsare made,andhowto decide whichsuggestionsare notrightfor yourcase. The guide
alsocoverspresentationskills fororal hearings before the UKIPOand a considerationof cross-
examinationof witnesses. Finally, thisguideendswithabrief bibliographyandsome sourcesof
furtherreadingandtraining.

3. Chapter1 – Rhetoric – The Art of Persuasion
The OxfordEnglishDictionarydefinesrhetoricas:
The art of effectiveor persuasivespeaking orwriting, especially the exploitation of figuresof
speech and other compositionaltechniques
Aristotle suggestedin Rhetoricthatrhetoricconsistsof 3 modesof persuasion:
Of the modesof persuasion furnished by thespoken word therearethree kinds.The first kind
dependson thepersonalcharacterof the speaker;the second on putting theaudienceinto a
certain frameof mind;the third on the proof,orapparentproof,provided by thewordsof
the speech itself
These have beenexplainedasthe trilogyof logos,pathos andethos. Logos isthe call to logicand
reasoning;pathos the call toemotion; ethosthe call tothe credibilityof the “presenter”. Inthe best
cases“presenters”utilise all three of these modes.
1.1 Logos – The Call to Logic in Legal Reasoning
By theirverynature lawyersare requiredtobe stronglogicians. Eachsuggestiontoa decisionmaker
that theyshouldmake afindingshould be logically sound. Itisimportantto therefore understand
whetherargumentswhichare being relieduponare simpledeductivearguments,orwhetherthey
are inductive arguments.
1.1.A - Deductive Arguments
A deductive argumentisone where if the premises (the statementsthatmake upthe argument) are
true thenthe conclusion mustbe true. For example:
All rodentsare mammals. A rat isa rodent. A rat is therefore amammal.
(premise) (premise) (conclusion)
In orderto attack the validityof a conclusion basedupondeductivearguments youmustattackthe
validityof one ormore of the premises. Inthe exampleabove youmusteitherargue thatitis
incorrectto say that all rodentsare mammals,orthat it isincorrectto say that a rat isa rodent,or
both. If youcannot showthe falsityof a premise thenthe conclusion naturally follows.
1.1.B - Inductive Arguments
An inductive argumentisone where the conclusionfollowsfromthe premises,butthe conclusionis
merely likely –ie. there isa highprobabilitythatthe conclusioniscorrect – rather than that the
conclusion beingcertain. Forexample:
Tirednessisakeycause of lossof attentionfordrivers andresultingaccident. The driverhad
drivenfor12 hourswithouta breakbefore the accident. The accidentoccurredbecause the
driverwastired.

4. Of course,itispossible thatthe accidentoccurredbecause the roadswere icy,or because the brakes
failed,orbecause the othercar didnot stopat the junctionas itwas supposedto,or because of one
(or a combination) of otherfactors.
In orderto attack the conclusionof an inductive argumentyoumaytherefore eitherattackthe
premises(ie inthiscase thattirednessisakeycause,or that the driverwastired) orattack the
probabilityof the conclusionby introducingotherinductivearguments (suchasice orbrake failure).
1.1.C - The Issue ofMisdiagnosis
One particularissue whichmayarise whenconsideringcasespertainingtotrade marksisa
misunderstandingof whetheranargumentreliesupondeductive orinductivearguments. If you
assume incorrectlythatanargumentis deductive thenyouriskmissingrelevantarguments andmay
not presentthe decisionmakerwithenoughmaterial to reachthe conclusionyouseek. If you
misdiagnose itasaninductive argumentthenyou will thinkthe decisionmakerhasadiscretion
whichdoesnotexist.
If we take the example of section5(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 we see thatit states the
following:
(2) A trade mark shall notbe registeredif because –
(a) it isidentical withanearliertrade markandis to be registeredforgoodsor
servicessimilartothose forwhichthe earlier trade markis protected[…]
there existsalikelihoodof confusiononthe partof the public,whichincludesthe likelihood
of associationwiththe earliertrade mark.
If we considerthisprovision we are temptedtoreadthisas allowingthe argument:
The later mark is identical withanearliertrade mark (premise). The latermark isto be
registeredforgoodsorservicessimilartothose forwhichthe earliertrade markis
protected(premise). There therefore existsalikelihoodof confusion (deductiveconclusion).
In fact,the likelihoodof confusionrequiresaconclusiontobe made whichis inductive –itis one
where the decisionmakermustdecideif there isalikelihood of confusionbasedupon anumberof
factors. The provisionof law provides thatthere are twonecessary factorstosucceedunder5(2)(a)
– the mark mustbe identical andthe goodsor servicesmustbe similar otherwise youfail –butif all
youargue are these twopremises thensuccessisnotguaranteed,since the case law establishesthat
youmust lookat all relevantfactors. Itis, to borrow the termusedbyJamesMellorQC in esure
InsuranceLtdv Direct Line InsurancePlc [2008] EWCA Civ842, a “soup” approach,albeitthatthis
soupmust containcertainingredients.
1.1.D - The Issue of MisplacementofArguments
A furtherblockonpresentingacase well isthe misplacementof arguments,inotherwordsknowing
whatargumentsshouldbe made,butnot placingthemwhere theyare appropriate. The resultof
thisisthat the argumentseemsjumbledandunfocussed. Later on inthisguide Ipresentanexample
whichshowsthe argumentsundersection5(2) inmore detail,andthe simple reasonforthisisthat

5. on manyoccasionsI have seenpartiesarguingaboutconcepts inthe wrongplace. Notonlydoes
misplacementremove alogical argumentfromwhere itisrequired,italsoreducesthe clarityand
strengthof the argumentsinthe sectionwhere the concepthasbeen misplaced. If the decision
makerwantsto see your argumentona particularpoint,theywill anticipatefindingitinthe place
that itshouldbe. If itis notthere it ispossible thatthe decisionmakerwill conclude thatyouhave
not addressedthe point atall,andtheymay conclude fromyoursilence thatthe issue isinthe other
side’sfavour.
1.2 Pathos – The Call toEmotion
The call to emotionmeansnomore inthiscontextthatthe outcome shouldfeel the justoutcome.
The level towhicha decisionmakerstartswiththe justoutcome andworksback to justifyitinlawis
arguable insome cases,butin a numberof cases the call to emotionisessential. Itistrue to say
that undersection5(1) of the Act there is simple logical argument(isthere identityinboththe
marks andthe goods/services),butinmanysituationsbaseduponinductivereasoningIsuggestthat
the decisionmakerisnotwhollyignorantof the surroundingfacts(if presentedwell) andthatthis
may have an effect(perhapsimperceptible) onthe conclusions.
In relationtothe UKIPOit isimportantto note that an appeal of the first-leveldecision isbywayof a
reviewof the decision. Thismeansthatif you want to appeal onthe facts youmust persuade the
appellate decision-makerthatthe earlierdecisionisnotone the decisionmakerwas entitledto
come to. Where a conclusionis basedonan inductive argument(oftendescribedinthe case law as
“multi-factorial”) itwillusuallybe the case that an earlierdecision isone thatcouldbe made solong
as the decisionmakertookaccountof all the facts andno irrelevantfacts(ie. the correctpremises).
A small imperceptible nudgeviaacall to emotionmaymake a difference.
To be clear,thisisnot an invitationtothrow yourselfontothe goodgracesof the decisionmaker
and pleadformercy in the absence of logical argument,nortofill uppagesof evidence withalong
and complex backstorywhichbearsnorelationtothe case. It simplymeansthatthe decisionmaker
shouldunderstand the contextof the dispute andyour“frame”of understanding. Experienced
advisorswill understand howmuch backstorytoplace in the case (and where toplace it) to make
the case memorable inthe rightwayandthe conclusion seemright. Thisisinmanywaysthe same
balance a scriptwritermuststrike inbackstoryandaction whenwritingafilm. Atthe endof this
guide there are a numberof referencestoworksandinterestingindividualswhomayhelpyou
decide howbesttopresentstory,andI alsomake furtherreferencesthroughoutthisguide.
1.3 Pathos – The Call toCredibility
The call to credibilityisone whichtakesinall mannerof trustand incorporatesthe bona fides and
likeability of the “presenter”. Where alegal argumentisdeductive andthe premisesare clearly
filledthen the importance of pathosmaybe reduced since the decisionmakerisforcedtoa
conclusionbythe law. In contrast,where a balance of factorsoccurs (suchas inan inductive
argument) orwhere the decisionmakermustweighupthe value of statementsorevidence,the
credibilityof the communicationmatters.
The issuesthatcontribute tocredibility are nomystery,andare no differentthanthose we
encounterdealingwithpeople inourdailylives. We are more likelytobelievethose people who:

6.  Are straightforward
 Are polite
 Answerquestionsdirectlyand(seemingly)truthfully
 Do not abuse emotion
 Have expertise
 Are willingtoaccepttheyare not experts
 Are willingtoconcede where itiscleartheyare wrong
 Are consistent
 Are fair
We are lesslikelytobelievethose who:
 Are shownto have lied
 Exaggerate
 Professtoansweronareas outside theirfieldof knowledge
 Are inconsistent
 Are argumentative orabusive
 Are unwillingtoconcede evenwhereitiscleartheycannotbe right
 Are biased
 Are irrationallyemotive
It isworth notingthatthese relate to representativesandtheirsubmissionsasmuchas witnessesor
witnessstatements. If youdonot laya logical andcredible basisyouriskthe otherside andthe
decisionmakerconcludingthatyourevidence andsubmissionsare toobiasedtobe acceptedie.the
mental response of the otherside andthe decisionmaker is“wellyouwouldsaythat,wouldn’t
you..”and youhave no othersupport.
Some of the traitsabove are straight-forwardandhopefullyare self-evident(ie.don’tlie) whilst
othersare at the margins of howa case ispresented. The issue of credibilityispervasive,
particularlywhere apartyis self-representedorretainsthe same representativethroughout(ie.
fromdraftingthe groundsthroughevidence tofinal submissions). Iwill therefore seektoaddress
issuesof credibilitythroughoutthisguide.
1.4 Conclusion on The 3 Rhetoric Modes
In orderto have a strong case whichproducesthe bestprospectof a positive outcomeyoumust
presentacase whichretainsall three of these modesof persuasion:
 You mustkeepthe logical “thread”of your argument;
 You mustkeepthe sympathyof the decisionmaker(orensure the otherside donotclaim
it);and most importantly
 You mustremaintrustworthyandcredible inthe eyesof the decisionmaker
The remainderof thisguide isdedicatedtotryingto helpyou fulfil all three modes.