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 >> PHILOSOPHY (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2000] UKIntelP o16800 (12 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o16800.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o16800 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o16800
Result
Appeal against a decision of the Registrar to refuse to order discovery - Appeal dismissed
Points Of Interest
Summary
Following the filing of the applicant’s evidence the registered proprietor asked for discovery relating to a particular declaration where the declarant stated that he had spoken to the registered proprietor about use of his mark. The registered proprietor disputed this claim and asked by way of discovery where the alleged discussions had taken place.
The request for discovering was allowed and the Registrar issued an appropriate order. The applicant filed some information which satisfied the Registrar but not the proprietor. He appealed to the Appointed Person who accepted that the original order had not been complied with and issued a fresh order. The applicant responded with the necessary information but went on to claim that in relation to the discussions between the declarant (a Mr Keith) and the registered proprietor, the declarant had visited a nearby public house where he learned that the proprietor had been banned from the pub. The registered proprietor requested further “discovery” in which he requested the name of the public house and a description of the bar staff who made the allegation. The matter came before the Registrar at an interlocutory hearing where the Hearing Officer, Mr Rowan, refused the request since he did not consider the matter relevant to the revocation proceedings.
In his third declaration the declarant declared that there were no documents available and therefore disclosure of them could not be ordered. He claimed not to remember the name of the pub nor could he describe the member of staff who had made the allegation. In all the circumstances, the Appointed Person considered that there would be insufficient benefit to force the declarant to travel to North Wales in an effort to obtain the requested information particularly as the applicants for revocation were prepared to delete the offending paragraphs from the declarant’s declaration. The information regarding the pub would be irrelevant to the disposing of the revocation proceedings and the Appointed Person therefore dismissed the appeal.
