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 >> CYCLING IS... (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o19900 (14 June 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o19900.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o19900
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CYCLING IS... (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o19900 (14 June 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o19900
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/199/00
- Decision date
- 14 June 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr C Bowen
- Mark
- CYCLING IS...
- Classes
- 25, 35
- Applicants
- The Consortium of Bicycle Retailers Limited
- Opponents
- Halfords Ltd
- Opposition
- Request for an extension of time by Consortium within which to appeal the Registrar’s decision to the Appointed Person
Result
Request for an extension of time - Request allowed
Request to accept a late filed appeal - Request allowed
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The Registrar’s decision was issued on 21 December 1999 together with correspondence to the effect that if an appeal was sought to the Appointed Person it must be made on or before 21 January 2000. Under cover of a letter dated 21 January 2000 an appeal by the applicants was faxed to the Registrar on 23 January 2000. As this was outside the due date the applicants were advised that it would be necessary to formally seek an extension of time before the late filed appeal could be considered. Further mix-ups occurred over the filing of a formal request for an extension of time; formal reasons for the delay in submitting the request and the need for it and the copying of correspondence. The opponents objected to the grant of any extension of time and the acceptance of the appeal.
Having heard submissions at a hearing and considering all the papers and surrounding circumstances the Hearing Officer allowed the extension and accepted the Appeal. He stated that it was a right of any party to appeal a decision of the Registrar and, while he accepted that the opponents’ agents had made a number of errors, he did not think that this amounted to an abuse of process. The Hearing Officer thus decided in all the circumstances to allow the extension of time and accept the appeal.