Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> RAPID SPORTSLINE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o18998 (29 September 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o18998.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o18998
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
RAPID SPORTSLINE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o18998 (29 September 1998)
For the whole decision click here: o18998
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/189/98
- Decision date
- 29 September 1998
- Hearing officer
- Mr S J Probert
- Mark
- RAPID SPORTSLINE
- Classes
- 41
- Applicant
- Interactive Media Service Limited
- Opponent
- Sportsline USA Inc
- Rectification
- Rectification of an irregularity in procedure (Rule 60). Discretion of the Registrar.
Result
Rectification of an irregularity in procedure - Application refused. Discretion of the Registrar : Registrar had no power to remedy the situation.
Points Of Interest
- The Hearing Officer decided that Rule 60 of the Trade Mark Rules 1994 did not provide the Registrar with power to remove a mark from the Register; neither did he have any discretion to do so. However, see ANDREAS STIHL AG SRIS O/379/00.
Summary
The opponent filed opposition on the last day of the three month period allowed for opposition. Due to an error the Form TM7 (notice of opposition) indicated an incorrect application number (in fact that of the opponents application) but on the accompanying Statement of Grounds attached to the Form TM7 the correct application number was stated. In the event the error was not spotted by the Registry and the applicants mark proceeded to registration.
In his consideration of the arguments submitted the Hearing Officer referred to the DUCATI and ST KEA cases where the Registrar had considered somewhat similar circumstances. In this case the Hearing Officer followed the path taken in the DUCATI case and decided that he had no power or discretion to remedy the situation since the applicants mark was now on the Register and could not be removed therefrom.