Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/438/01

Decision date

4 October 2001

Hearing officer

Mr E S Smith

Mark

MCQUEEN CLOTHING CO

Classes

18

Applicant

Nicholass Stephen Croom T/A McQueen Clothing Co

Opponent

Lee Alexander McQueen

Opposition

Interlocutory Hearing regarding an extension of time to file evidence

Result

Extension of time allowed

Points Of Interest

• 1. Representation at Hearing - see summary.
• 2. Reasons for extension. Detailed reasons should be given in writing

Summary

Following the filing of opposition the opponents had been granted four extensions of time in connection with the filing of their evidence, on the basis of on-going negotiations. The applicants were then granted a number of extensions on the same basis, up to 8th June 2001. On 8th June, the applicants filed part of their evidence by fax and asked for a further period of two weeks to complete the filing of evidence. They later said on 20th June that the two weeks request had been an error and they had meant to ask for two months to 8 August. The opponents objected to the grant of further time and a hearing was appointed to decide matters.

As a preliminary point the opponents asked for an adjournment because, at a late stage, they became aware that the applicants were to be represented by Counsel. However, the Counsel concerned was representing the beneficial opponents in his capacity as an non-executive director. The Hearing Officer refused adjournment, noting in his decision that the applicants had also appointed Counsel.

A second preliminary point related to the evidence filed by fax. This evidence was not capable since it related to bulky exhibits which could not be faxed and had to be filed by post. The Hearing Officer decided that in the circumstances the evidence had all been properly filed within time.

The Hearing Officer reviewed the correspondence relating to the requests for the extensions of time and took account of the arguments submitted by Counsel. Details given in the written request for the final extension of time were less detailed than might have been expected and the opponents claimed that the Registrar had been mislead since negotiations had broken down between the parties. All the applicants evidence had been filed within the final period requested and taking account of all the circumstances the Hearing Officer agreed to accept the applicants evidence into the proceedings.