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 >> EURO BELLE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o13601 (19 March 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o13601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o13601
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
EURO BELLE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o13601 (19 March 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o13601
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/136/01
- Decision date
- 19 March 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Attfield
- Mark
- EURO BELLE
- Classes
- 09, 38
- Applicant
- Eurobell (Holdings)Plc
- Opponent
- Bell IP Holdings LLC, Bell Atlantic Corporation, Bell South Corporation & SBC Communications Inc (the joint opponents)
- Opposition
- Section 38(2) and opposed request under Rule 68 of the Trade Mark Rules 2000 for extension of time for filing evidence in reply under Rule 13(10).
Result
Request under Rule 68 for extension of time under Rule 13(10) refused.Opposition therefore ready for decision.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponent, having been granted two extensions of time totalling 5 months in which to file evidence in reply under Rule 13(10), then sought a further 3 months’ extension on the grounds that negotiations to settle the opposition were still ongoing. Whilst the Registry’s preliminary view was that the latter request should be granted, the applicant objected since the opponent had apparently failed to respond to settlement proposals made two months earlier. Following an interlocutory hearing to consider the matter, the Hearing Officer overturned the Registry’s preliminary view and refused the requested extension, and the parties were requested to indicate whether they wished to attend a substantive hearing or accept a decision from the papers.
In his statement of reasons for his decision the Hearing Officer relied on the usual case law (especially Liquid Force) to support his findings that the opponent’s lack of diligence in failing to continue to prepare evidence in reply during protracted settlement negotiations meant that further indulgence was not justified.