Omokaro v Simco Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,MacMenamin J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 15 September 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 105
• Date: 15 September 2020
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000067

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 79 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT 1996 (AS AMENDED BY SECTION 44 OF THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2006)

BETWEEN/

REBECCA OMOKARO

APPLICANT

AND

SIMCO LIMITED

AND

FREMANTLEMEDIA LIMITED

RESPONDENTS

AND

CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS

NOTICE PARTY

[2020] IESCDET 105

Clarke C.J.

MacMenamin J.

Baker J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000067

High Court record no: 2019 No. 34 MCA

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.4° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: High Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 15 th May, 2019 and 26 th June, 2019

DATE OF ORDER: 15 th May, 2019 and 26 th June, 2019

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 29 th May, 2019 and 27 th June, 2019

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 15 th June, 2020 AND WAS NOT IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal, having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution, as a result of the 33 ^rd Amendment, have now been considered in a large number of determinations, and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESC DET 134, and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v. Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called “leapfrog appeal”, direct from the High Court to this Court, can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of this Court in Wansboro v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

3 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to that application, and is final and conclusive only...