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 >> OLD BIKE MART (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o37000 (5 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o37000.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o37000 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o37000
Result
Request for an extension of time to file evidence. - Request refused
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents filed notice of opposition on 25 August 1999 and following the filing of a counterstatement were allowed until 8 March 2000 to file their evidence. On request a further period of 3 months was allowed up to 8 June 2000. On 8 June contact was made with the Registry by telephone and later that day a fax message requested an extension of one month to 8 July 2000. The reason given was that the instructing principal solicitor had been urgently called to the United States. The applicants objected to the grant of any further time.
Following further correspondence a TM Form 9 (with fee) was filed by the opponents out of time and eventually an interlocutory hearing took place on 25 August, 2000.
The first issue for decision was whether or not the extension request could be considered as the formal request had been filed out of time. The Hearing Officer decided in all the circumstances that it could be accepted as the fax request had been filed within time. The second matter was the allowance of the request and the Hearing Officer decided that insufficient reasons had been advanced for the need for extra time. Additionally he noted that by the date of the hearing a further period had elapsed and the only document produced was a draft five page declaration. Further time beyond the date of the hearing would therefore be required to complete matters. Request refused.
The second matter was the allowance of the request and the Hearing Officer decided that insufficient reasons had been advanced for the need for extra time. Additionally he noted that by the date of the hearing a further period had elapsed and the only document produced was a draft five page declaration. Further time beyond the date of the hearing would therefore be required to complete matters. Request refused.
