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) [1999] UKIntelP o31599 (10 September 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o31599.html Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o31599 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o31599
Result
Rule 31(3) - Proprietor’s request to allow late-filed forms TM 8 and counterstatement into proceedings refused.
Section 46 - Section 46: Application succeeded; registrations revoked.
Points Of Interest
Summary
Although the proprietor’s agent filed evidence of use within the 3 month period specified in Rule 31(3), the Forms TM 8 and counterstatements were filed outside that period. In his written grounds for refusing to allow the late filed documents into the proceedings following an interlocutory hearing, the Hearing Officer took the view that Rule 31(4) had the effect of bringing all the substantive provisions of Rule 13 into play for revocation proceedings, and the period for filing forms TM 8 and the counterstatements thereby became non-extendable by virtue of Rule 62(1).
Following the usual authorities the Hearing Officer also took the view that the general discretionary powers under Rule 60 could not be invoked to overcome the specific provisions dealing with the time periods for filing documents. Moreover, there was no basis for him to exercise discretion to allow the statutory declarations to stand in place of the counterstatements in the proceedings. Although giving no weight to the matter, he also indicated that prima facie the evidence filed did not demonstrate use of the mark in suit.
