Background facts
Background facts
Cat trees and Cat scratchers
The FTT described the products from the photographic exhibits provided to it and the dimensions noted on those photos (FTT [11] and [12]). In summary, Cat trees, ranging in height from 91cm to 158cm consist of a tree structure of platforms of different shapes and sizes at different levels connected and supported by posts atop a square or rectangular base. The tree structure has a square or slightly curved box either at the base or half-way up accessed by a small ladder of two or three rungs. The underlying structure is made of MDF wood. The surfaces (apart from the underside of the platforms) are covered in a mixture of plush fabric and sisal coil. The posts for instance are covered in plush fabric interspersed with sisal coils at the mid-sections of the posts, the ladder rungs are covered in sisal coil. Various accessories (fabric pouches and “hammocks” or pom-poms) can be affixed.
Cat scratchers are either single or twin column circular posts coiled in sisal fixed to a square base covered by plush fabric.
It was common ground that the plush fabric that was used on the cat trees and cat scratchers was knitted fabric. (As will be seen various customs classifications distinguish between knitted and woven fabric).
The FTT also heard evidence, on behalf of Cozy Pet from Colin Fraser, a consultant advising Cozy Pet and accepted his evidence of fact. This included that in relation to cat trees, wood was a major element and that the wooden base was the single largest component, the others being sisal, plush, cardboard, tubes, and bolts. The FTT however rejected Mr Fraser’s evidence, which it regarded as opinion, that cats were not attracted to the plush fabric which was “… a minor feature for the aesthetic benefit of humans, typically to fit in with their home décor” (FTT [6][9][15]). The FTT considered instead that the plush fabric mimicked the fabric covering of household furniture and attracted cats to “nestle down on its surface as an alternative to household furniture” (FTT [73(3)]).
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background facts
- background law and FTT decision
- Classification Regulations
- Classification Regulation 350/2014
- Classification Regulation 1229/2013
- CJEU case-law
- The FTT’s analysis
- Grounds of appeal
- Reasoning by analogy
- Factual differences and FTT’s fact-finding
- BR Pet BV’s treatment of classification regulations
- Set-aside FTT decision for error in regarding products as the same?
- Remaining Grounds of Appeal 2-7
- Pet Playpen panels and Heavy duty panels
- The FTT’s analysis
- Grounds of appeal and parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- Remaking Decision in relation to playpens in UT
- Cozy Pet’s application to make post-hearing submissions
- Conclusions
![UT/2023/000023 - [2024] UKUT 00096 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)