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 >> TASTED APPROVED (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o23600 (7 July 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o23600.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o23600
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TASTED APPROVED (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o23600 (7 July 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o23600
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/236/00
- Decision date
- 7 July 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr S P Rowan
- Mark
- TASTED & APPROVED
- Classes
- 31
- Applicants
- Friskies Petcare (UK) Ltd
- Opponents
- Mars UK Limited
- Opposition
- Request by the applicants for an extension of time for the filing of their evidence
Result
Request for an extension of time: - Request refused.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
Following the launching of opposition the opponents filed their evidence and the applicants date for filing their evidence was set for 14 October 1999. An extension of three months was granted for the gathering of evidence and a further period of three months was granted to sort out discrepancies in the figures provided. Evidence was filed on 13 April 2000, within the extended period, but a further request for an extension of three months was made on the grounds that the applicants were considering the carrying out of a public survey to buttress their case. The opponents objected to the grant of further time.
At the Hearing the applicants explained that the possibility of carrying out a public survey had not been mentioned in earlier requests for extensions of time because it was not clear that such evidence would be necessary. However, it was now decided that such a survey should be carried out. It was admitted that even if the requested extension was allowed it would not be possible to carry out the survey and file the results by the due date. The opponents pointed to the fact that the applicants, by the date of the hearing, had in excess of eleven months to file their evidence. The carrying out of a public survey was within their own control and could have been undertaken earlier if desired.