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 >> MEDIABASE (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2000] UKIntelP o02600 (2 February 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o02600.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o02600, [2000] UKIntelP o2600 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02600
Result
Proceedings remitted to the Registrar for further consideration: (1) If no extension of time request made the appeal would stand dismissed. (2) If request made the order for revocation would be suspended until request for extension was dealt with. (3) If request refused the appeal against the order for revocation would stand dismissed with costs awarded to the applicant. (4) If request allowed the appeal against the order for revocation would be allowed with costs awarded to the registered proprietor.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 10 September 1999 (SRIS O/315/99) the Hearing Officer held that the three month period allowed for the filing of Forms TM8 and Counterstatements in Revocation proceedings (Rule 31(3) of the 1994 Rules) could not be extended. The Appointed Person, however took a different view. He compared the requirements of Rule 13 and Rule 31, which are linked and concluded that as Rule 31(3) was not excluded from the possibility of extension by Rule 62(3), that extension was possible. Therefore the case was remitted to the Registrar to consider the request for an extension of time if one was formally made by the registered proprietor.
