BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> ONCOVIN (Trade Mark: Revocation) [1998] UKIntelP o03298 (26 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o03298.html Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o3298, [1998] UKIntelP o03298 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o03298
Result
Request to set aside Hearing Officer’s decision: - Request refused.
Request to re-open proceedings: - Request refused.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 15 May 1997 the Registrar’s Hearing Officer had allowed partial cancellation of the registered proprietors registration. A request was made for an extension of time to appeal the decision and during this period the registered proprietors changed their trade mark agents.
At the end as a further period allowed to consider the appeal, because of the change of agents, an appeal was lodged to the Appointed Person. At the same time a request was made to set aside the Hearing Officer’s decision because of alleged irregularities and a request that an extension of time be granted so that an appeal could be made to the Appointed Person in respect of the alleged irregularities.
The Hearing Officer noted that at all times the registered proprietors had been represented by professional trade mark agents and there was no challenge by them or the registered proprietors to the handling of the case. Evidence had been filed by the registered proprietors in the proceedings and while a request to file further evidence had been refused because it was not considered relevant, at each stage the Registrar had offered the opportunity to attend a hearing to argue the matter. In the Hearing Officer’s view it was not now possible to re-open matters some months later and he refused the request to do so.
As regards the request to set aside the Hearing Officer’s earlier decision, the Hearing Officer confirmed the Registrar’s position that he has no power to set aside his own decision. It may be possible to amend a clerical error in a decision but not possible to set aside the whole decision.
