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!



BAILII [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 >> WORTH/HOUSE OF WORTH (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2004] UKIntelP o16304 (7 June 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o16304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o16304

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


WORTH/HOUSE OF WORTH (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2004] UKIntelP o16304 (7 June 2004)

For the whole decision click here: o16304

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/163/04
Decision date
7 June 2004
Hearing officer
Mr O Morris
Mark
WORTH/HOUSE OF WORTH
Classes
23
Registered Proprietor
Martin McCarthy
Applicants for Revocation
House of Worth Limited
Interlocutory hearing of a request for an extension of time in Revocation proceedings

Result

Extension of time granted : available evidence admitted.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applicant for revocation sought an extension of time in which to file evidence in support of their applications. The registered proprietor objected. On the date of the hearing the evidence was to hand. Because negotiations were in progress the applicant had assumed that a delay in filing was acceptable.

After due consideration and in the light of the relevant case law and practice the Hearing Officer granted the extension of time and thus admitted the evidence.

However, as no advance warning that the evidence was to hand had been given to the registered proprietor the Hearing Officer made an award of costs in his favour.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o16304.html