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 >> THE MUSLIM PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o48100 (9 October 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o48100.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o48100
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
THE MUSLIM PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o48100 (9 October 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o48100
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/481/00
- Decision date
- 9 October 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr S Thorley QC
- Mark
- THE MUSLIM PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN
- Classes
- 09, 16, 38, 41, 42
- Applicant
- Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui
- Opponent
- Dr M H A Khan on behalf of The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain
- Opposition
- Request by the opponents for an extension of time for the filing of their evidence. Request refused by the Registrar. Opponents appealed to the Appointed Person.
Result
Request by opponents for an extension of time - Request refused. Appeal dismissed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. As per summary.
Summary
This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision of 27 June 2000 in which she refused a request for an extension of time from the opponents.
The Appointed Person in his initial summary of the appeal made it clear that he should only intervene if the Hearing Officer was clearly wrong and secondly there was a laid down framework for the handling of proceedings in the Registry and extensions would be granted only if supported by good reasons. In a normal case any application for an extension of time should be accompanied by written detail to show clearly what the party had done, what he wants to do and why it is that he has not been able to do it.
In the present case the request for an extension of time had been supported by reasons which on examination, and after comments from the applicant, were shown not to be wholly accurate. He thus concluded that the Hearing Officer had been right in refusing to grant the extension requested.
The Hearing Officer had also commented on the work carried out by the opponents in preparing their evidence and had been unconvinced by their diligence. As no draft evidence had been filed; little information was available as to what evidence was being sought and no steps were in place to provide material within a set timescale, the Appointed Person concluded that there was no justification for any criticism of these comments. Also while it was clear that there was a private dispute between the parties there was no material which suggested that there was an over-riding public interest aspect to consider. Appeal dismissed.