Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/378/00

Decision date

6 October 2000

Hearing officer

Mr M Knight

Mark

DEVICE

Classes

09, 16, 24, 25

Applicants

Nicholas Dynes Gracey

Opponents

The Gillette Company

Opposition

(i)Disclosure(ii) Stay of proceedings(iii) Request to give oral evidence

Result

Disclosure - Request refused

Stay of proceedings - Request refused

Oral evidence - Request refused

Points Of Interest

• 1. This was one of three related decisions issued on the same day. See BL O/376/00 and BL O/377/00.

Summary

The applicant had asked for disclosure very early in the proceedings and before the opponents had filed their evidence. The request for disclosure was also very wide ranging. The Hearing Officer decided that the case for disclosure had not been made out and in any case it was so wide ranging as to be unreasonable. The request was refused.

Some time after the opponents commenced these opposition proceedings the applicant applied to revoke one of the marks relied upon by the opponents in these proceedings. In seeking a stay in these proceedings, the applicant was trying to put himself in a better position by having the revocation proceedings dealt with at the same time. Having reviewed the papers the Hearing Officer concluded that the applicant had had ample opportunity to launch the revocation proceedings at an earlier stage and to process them more quickly if he wished those proceedings to run in tandem with these opposition proceedings. Request for a stay refused.

The applicant had also requested that he be allowed to give oral evidence at the hearing to decide this opposition. The Hearing Officer noted that no substantive reasons for the request had been made. The Hearing Office noted that normally case evidence is filed in the form of affidavits or statutory declarations and cases before the office are decided on the basis of such evidence, with verbal arguments presented at hearings, if required. In the absence of good reasons the Hearing Officer refused the request.