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 >> CLUB NATION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o30402 (29 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o30402.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o30402 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o30402
Result
Applicants’ request for extension of time in which to file an appeal granted. -
Points Of Interest
Summary
Following a hearing of the substantive opposition the Registrar’s Hearing Officer had found for the opponents, in respect of all 16 applications. (See BL O/099/02). The applicants stated their intention to appeal that decision to the Appointed Person in a request for an extension of time in which to file such an appeal. The Registry gave as its preliminary view that the request should be granted. The opponents contested that view and sought a hearing.
After hearing the parties the Hearing Officer confirmed the preliminary view regarding the extension of time and thus he admitted into the proceedings the substantive appeal which the applicant had subsequently filed. However, he awarded costs to the opponents in respect of the hearing at the upper end of the published scale, in view of the fact that "had the form TM9 been correctly completed (the hearing) might have been unnecessary". In the course of his decision the Hearing Officer ruled that whilst the oppositions had not been consolidated the filing of a single appeal was acceptable since it was clear that it was the applicants intention to appeal the decision "as a totality". Even if he were wrong in this, he said, he would have exercised the discretion granted by Rule 66 to correct the irregularity.
In the event the extension of time was granted but costs were awarded to the opponents.
