Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/464/01

Decision date

18 September 2001

Hearing officer

Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC

Mark

WILLSON

Classes

25

Applicant/Appellants

Style Holdings Plc

Opponents/Respondents

Wilson Sporting Goods Co

Appeal against Hearing Officer’s decision (see O/061/01) to grant the opponents an extension of time.

Result

Appeal dismissed

Points Of Interest

• An "amplified explanation" of the preparations for filing evidence and reasons for the delay, should be stated in writing prior to the hearing.

Summary

The Appointed Person noted that by not simply confining the hearing to the question whether the reasons put forward in writing on 2 March 2000 were adequate as a basis for the exercise of discretion in the opponents favour, the hearing officer effectively allowed the opponent to renew its request orally ........ and to do so on the basis of facts and matters which had not previously been brought to the attention of the Registrar or the applicant. He thought it ‘regrettable’ that the Registrar did not insist that if the opponent intended to offer an amplified explanation with regard to the preparation of the evidence and the reason for the delay in filing it, it should do so in writing in advance of the hearing so that the request for an extension of time could be fully and effectively considered against the background of a properly stated case. It was unsatisfactory for the applicant and the hearing officer that this was not done. However, the Appointed Person did not feel able to say that it was not open to the Hearing Officer to exercise his discretion on the basis of the oral representations, and it had not been suggested that there had been any misrepresentation on the part of the opponent. For these reasons, and because he was disinclined on appeal to indulge in a game of "snakes and ladders", the Appointed Person concluded "with some reluctance" that he ought not to interfere with the Hearing Officer’s decision. Appeal dismissed.