(1987)1986May 17 rTRIANTAFYLLIDES Ρ] INTHE MATTER OFARTICLE 146 OFTHE CONSTITUTION BEIERSDORFAG, Applicants, ν THE REPUBLIC OFCYPRUS,THROUGH THE REGISTRAROF.TRADEMARKS, Respondent (Case No 361/84) Reasoningof anadministrativeact—Musibeclearandadequate toenableCourt toexercisecontrolover theact—Lack ofreasoningisagroundof annulment — Arguments of counsel cannotsupplement thereasoning The Registrar of Trade Marks objected to the registration of applicants' trade mark «LABELLO» inrespect of lip care products on the ground, inter aha, thatithad directreference tothecharacteror quality of thegoods This finding was based onthemeaningof thewords «La»and«Bello»in Italian 5 The applicants replied that the word is denved from the Latin words «Labial»and«Bellus»and thatitisaninvented word There followed a heanngbefore theRegistrar, who,however, insisted on hisaforesaid view Hencethisrecourse 10 Held,annullingthesub judicedecision {1)TheCourtcould nottracethe exact reasons for the Registrar's refusal and for his rejection of applicants' argumentsbefore him
(2)The reasoning of an administrative act must be clearand adequate in 1 5 order to enable the Court to exercise judicial control over it Lack of due reasoning is a ground of annulment Arguments of counsel cannot supplementthereasoning Subjudice decisionannulled No orderastocosts Casesreferred to Themistocleousv TheRepublic
(1985)3 C LR 1070, Michaelν TheRepublic(19$4)3CLrX 1312 1364, 20 3 C.L.R. Beleradorff A.G.v. Republic Kosmasv. TheElectricityAuthorityof Cyprus{1984}3C.L.R. 117; FoumiaLtd. v.TheRepublic{1983)3 C.L.R.
- Recourse. Λ Recourse against the refusal of the respondent to register 5 applicants' trade mark «LABELLO» in class 3 of Part A ofthe Register ofTradeMarks. A. DikigoropouIIos, for theapplicants. St. loannidou (Mrs), for therespondents. 10 Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP.read thefollowingjudgment. By means of the present recourse theapplicantschallenge therefusal ofthe respondent Registrar ofTrade Marks(hereinafter tobereferred to as «the Registrar») to register theirtrade mark «LABELLO». Such refusal wascommunicatedtothem on the 7th May
- 15 The applicants area limited liability company incorporatedin the Federal Republic of Germany andthey arethe registered owners ofthetrademarkinquestion inrespect oflipcareproducts inWestGermanyandothercountries;andonthe 12th November 1982 they applied fortheregistration inCyprus oftheirsaid trade 20 mark, in class 3 PanA of the Register, in respect of lip care products. The Registrar objected on the 1st December 1982, tothe registration of the trade mark on the ground that it had direct reference tothe characterorquality of the goods and thatit was 25 notdistinctive, asrequired byvirtue ofsection 11
(1)oftheTrade Marks Law, Cap.268; and he objected, also, undersection14
(1)of Cap. 268, because itwas considered tobesimilar tothetrade mark «DEOBELLE» which wasalready registered. Thefinding oftherespondentthattheproposed trademarkhad 30 direct reference tothe character orquality of the goods was, as there appears from his letterofthe 1stDecember 1982, based on the meaningofthe words «La»and «Bello»inItalian. The applicants ina letter dated the17th January 1984 stated that the word «LABELLO» is derived from the Latin words 35 «LABIAL»meaning«belongingtothelips»and«Bellus»signifying «good»andtheycontendedthat«LABELLO»isaninvented word. 1313 TrianUfvUkUaP. BciersdorfA.G.v.RepubUc 1987 Then there tookplaceahearingbefore theRegistraronthe9th April 1984 at which there were put forward several argumentsin support of the registration of the trade mark of the applicants;in particular reference was made to the origin of the word «LABELLO»,itsregistration asatrademarkinothercountriesand 5 itsdissimilaritytothetrademark«DEOBELLE». The decision of the Registrar appears in the form of a «note» inscribed on the minutesofthe hearing of the9th April 1984 and it is merely to the effect that the objection of the 1st December 1982 under section 11
(1)could not be waived, but that the 10 objection undersection 14
(1)waswaived. This decision was communicated to counsel for the applicants onthe7thMay1984andasaresultthepresentrecoursewasfiled. Neither from the text of the aforementioned «note» which is inscribed on the minutes of the 9th April 1984, nor from the 15 contents ofany otherdocument before me,wasIabletotrace the exact reasons for which the Registrar has reached hissub judice decision and, indoingso,rejected thesubmissionsputforward by counselfortheapplicantsduringthehearingbeforehimonthe9th April 1984. 20 Itiswellsettled that thereasoning ofanadministrative decision must be clear and adequate in order to enable an administrative Court to exercise judicial control over it (see, inter alia, Themistochousv. TheRepublic,
(1985)3C.L.R. 1070,1081,and Michaelv. The Republic,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 1364,1376); and, also, 25 thatthe lackofdue reasoningisinitselfasufficient ground for the annulment of an administrative decision (see, in this respect, Kosmas v. The ElectricityAuthority of Cyprus,
(1984)3 C.L.R. 117,121, andFoumiaLtd. v. TheRepublic,
(1983)3C.L.R.262, 275,276). 30 Inthe present case thecomplete absence of any reasoning for thesubjudicedecisionpreventsthisCourtfrom exercisingjudicial control over it with a view to ascertaining whether or not such decisionwasreasonablyopen,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,to theRegistrar, and, consequently,thesubjudicedecisionhastobe 35 annulled for lackof due reasoning. Before concluding Ishould observe that the arguments which were put forward by counsel for the respondent Registrar in addressingthe Courtcannot,of course,betreated asprovidingor 1314 3CX.R. BciendorfA.G.τ.Republic TrUntafytlideeP. supplementing the reasoning for the Registrar's decision and as cunng the defect of lack of due reasoning for which such decision was annulled In the result the present recourse succeeds and the sub judice 5 decision isannulled;butIshall make noorderastothecostsofthis case Sub judice decisionannulled No orderas to costs 1315