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!



BAILII [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 >> Mr Oscar Mario Guagnelli Hidalgo (Patent) [2002] UKIntelP o24302 (13 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o24302.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o24302

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Mr Oscar Mario Guagnelli Hidalgo [2002] UKIntelP o24302 (13 June 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o24302

Patent decision

BL number
O/243/02
Concerning rights in
Concerning application to restore patent EP0535781
Hearing Officer
Mr M C Wright
Decision date
13 June 2002
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Mr Oscar Mario Guagnelli Hidalgo
Provisions discussed
PA.1977 Section 28(3)
Keywords
Restoration
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The proprietor engaged the services of a patent agent to send reminders to one of his employees (his daughter) who would then instruct the agent to pay the fee. The employee was also entrusted to notify the agent about the change of the address to which reminders should be sent. However, the e-mail she sent to the agent about the address change was not received. Moreover, she failed to follow agreed practice which was to chase up such correspondence by telephone when necessary, e.g. if no acknowledgement was received. Consequently, she did not receive reminders about the ninth year renewal fee and so no instructions were issued to pay the fee. The proprietor could not have anticipated the failure by his otherwise trusted and reliable employee to ensure that the agent was provided with an up-to-date address. Hence, the failure to pay the fee was due to circumstances which it would be unreasonable for the proprietor to have foreseen. The Hearing Officer accordingly allowed the request for restoration.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o24302.html