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 >> TRIM (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2000] UKIntelP o16000 (4 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o16000.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o16000 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o16000
Result
Section 68(3) - Application for revocation to proceed, with security for costs.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The Registry having determined that the applicant for revocation (an Australian company, albeit with a UK subsidiary) should provide security for costs, a preliminary issue arose between the parties as to whether delay in providing such security meant that the application should be deemed abandoned. In his statement of reasons for refusing to deem the application abandoned, the Hearing Officer explained that whilst the applicant could be criticised (through its agents) for not pursuing the security issue with greater diligence, there was no deliberate attempt to thwart or disadvantage the proprietor, and the proprietor had not been disadvantaged or inconvenienced to an extent justifying the refusal of the application on the technical issue of security for costs.
In reaching his decision, the Hearing Officer took into account an oversight in the Registry which eventually resulted in a departure from the Patent Office’s normal practice of declining to hold monies provided as security for costs.
