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 £5, 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 >> KISS ME (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2001] UKIntelP o57801 (20 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o57801.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o57801 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o57801
Result
Request for an extension of time: - Request refused
Points Of Interest
Summary
An application for revocation on the grounds of non-use was filed on 25 April 2001. The registered proprietor was advised of the application and allowed until 10 August 2001 to file a counterstatement and evidence to defend the registration. Nothing was heard from the proprietor and the Registrar issued her decision revoking the registration on 7 September 2001. A period of 28 days to 5 October 2001 was allowed for appeal.
On 4 October 2001 the registered proprietor requested an extension of time of two months on the basis that the registered mark had been promoted in the UK in 1997; that a distributor had been found in July 2001 and a considerable quantity of goods had been sold since that date. Because of the background to the appeal the case presented difficulties and it would be necessary to seek Counsel’s opinion in finalising the notice of appeal and thus a period of two months was required. The applicants objected to any extension and later claimed in correspondence that they had put their own mark SO KISS ME into use.
In correspondence and at the hearing there was speculation about the outcome of any proceedings which might result if an appeal was allowed. The Hearing Officer determined that this was not a matter for him. What he had to decide was whether or not, in all the circumstances, the proprietor had provided justification for the granting of an extension of time. The appeal period was 28 days and the proprietor was seeking to triple this period on the basis that Counsel had to be consulted to finalise the notice of appeal. The Hearing Officer concluded that the period requested was too long and in any case insufficient reasons had been given to justify the request. Extension of time request refused.
