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 >> Dedar Limited (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o07505 (22 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o07505.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o07505, [2005] UKIntelP o7505 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o07505
Summary
Faced with financial difficulties, the Managing Director of Dedar Ltd, Mr Michael Ling decided to delay paying the renewal fee until he had entered into an agreement with another company which had undertaken to provide funds to cover the renewal fee once the agreement had been finalise. The agreement was settled the day before the last day of the six month period allowed for paying the fee with extension fees. Mr Ling knew he would be tied up with an important meeting the following day and so sent instructions to pay by e-mail to his patent agents as soon as the agreement had been concluded, i.e. the evening before the last day for payment. However, unbeknown to him his e-mail account had not been reinstated despite the fact he had paid for it to be reinstated several weeks earlier. The Hearing Office took the view that the action Mr Ling took to avoid impecuniosity by ensuring he had the necessary funds and to issue instructions to pay immediately thereafter and before he would be engaged in important business discussions was reasonable in the circumstances. Moreover, he was satisfied that Mr Ling could not have foreseen that his e-mail account had not been reinstated particularly as the email provider confirmed that Mr Ling would have had good reason to believe it had been restored. The Hearing Officer was therefore satisfied that Mr Ling had exercised the degree of care which would have been reasonable under the circumstances and allowed restoration.
