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 >> TRICORDER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o11700 (24 March 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o11700.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o11700
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TRICORDER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o11700 (24 March 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o11700
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/117/00
- Decision date
- 24 March 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr S P Rowan
- Mark
- TRICORDER
- Classes
- 09
- Applicants
- Tricorder Technology Plc
- Opponents
- Paramount Pictures Corp
- Opposition
- 1. Request by the opponents for an extension of time for the filing of their evidence. 2. Amendment of grounds of opposition.
Result
Extension of time request: - Extension granted.
Request to amend grounds of opposition: - Request allowed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Grounds of opposition amended to one ground under Section 5(2)(a).
Summary
The applicants mark was published for opposition purposes on 12 October, 1998. Following the filing of opposition and a counterstatement the opponents were allowed until 4 April 1999 for the filing of their evidence. A number of requests for extensions of time were allowed on the basis that the parties were in negotiations.
On 10 October 1999 the opponents requested a further extension until 4 January 2000, giving detailed reasons for the request and setting out the state of the negotiations. This request was originally granted by the Registry but the applicants objected to the grant of any further time on the basis that meaningful discussions were no longer in train. A hearing was appointed to consider submissions from the parties.
After hearing the parties the Hearing Officer determined from the papers before him and from the submissions made, that there had been meaningful negotiations. In all the circumstances he granted the requested extension to 4 January 2000.
At the hearing the opponents made an application to amend their grounds of opposition so that the opposition would only proceed on the basis of Section 5(2)(a). This was agreed.
In the event that the opponents filed no evidence they asked that the opposition be allowed to proceed on the ground under Section 5(2)(a). From the papers before him the Hearing Officer was of the opinion that they had an arguable case and he agreed that the opposition would be allowed to continue if the opponents confirmed their intentions in writing and if they stuck to their promise of attending a hearing or make written submissions, the opposition would be allowed to proceed.