Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/168/00

Decision date

12 May 2000

Hearing officer

Mr S Thorley QC

Mark

PHILOSOPHY

Classes

25

Applicant for Revocation

Alberta Ferretti

Registered Proprietor

Nicholas Dynes Gracey

Revocation

Appeal against a decision of the Registrar to refuse to order discovery

Result

Appeal against a decision of the Registrar to refuse to order discovery - Appeal dismissed

Points Of Interest

• 1. This was an appeal from the Registrar’s decision dated 17 November, 1999.

Summary

Following the filing of the applicant’s evidence the registered proprietor asked for discovery relating to a particular declaration where the declarant stated that he had spoken to the registered proprietor about use of his mark. The registered proprietor disputed this claim and asked by way of discovery where the alleged discussions had taken place.

The request for discovering was allowed and the Registrar issued an appropriate order. The applicant filed some information which satisfied the Registrar but not the proprietor. He appealed to the Appointed Person who accepted that the original order had not been complied with and issued a fresh order. The applicant responded with the necessary information but went on to claim that in relation to the discussions between the declarant (a Mr Keith) and the registered proprietor, the declarant had visited a nearby public house where he learned that the proprietor had been banned from the pub. The registered proprietor requested further “discovery” in which he requested the name of the public house and a description of the bar staff who made the allegation. The matter came before the Registrar at an interlocutory hearing where the Hearing Officer, Mr Rowan, refused the request since he did not consider the matter relevant to the revocation proceedings.

In his third declaration the declarant declared that there were no documents available and therefore disclosure of them could not be ordered. He claimed not to remember the name of the pub nor could he describe the member of staff who had made the allegation. In all the circumstances, the Appointed Person considered that there would be insufficient benefit to force the declarant to travel to North Wales in an effort to obtain the requested information particularly as the applicants for revocation were prepared to delete the offending paragraphs from the declarant’s declaration. The information regarding the pub would be irrelevant to the disposing of the revocation proceedings and the Appointed Person therefore dismissed the appeal.