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 >> OLD BIKE MART (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o57001 (18 December 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o57001.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o57001
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
OLD BIKE MART (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o57001 (18 December 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o57001
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/570/01
- Decision date
- 18 December 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr C Bowen
- Mark
- OLD BIKE MART
- Classes
- 16
- Applicant
- Mortons of Horncastle Limited
- Opponent
- Emap Consumer Magazines Ltd
- Opposition
- Request to amend grounds of Opposition
Result
Request to amend grounds of opposition - Request to add additional ground allowed.
Points Of Interest
- At an earlier interlocutory hearing the opponents had been refused an extension of time to file their evidence in the proceedings (O/370/00). There was a delay in the issue of this decision because the earlier decision was appealed to the High Court. It would now appear that that appeal is not being pursued as the two parties are in negotiation.
Summary
In this case the opponents request to amend the grounds of opposition was by way of adding an additional ground under Section 5(1) of the Act. The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of an earlier registration for the mark BIKE HART in respect of identical goods to those within the specification of the applicants application and they wished to argue that identical marks and identical goods were at issue (Section 5(1)).The request to amend was made more than twelve months after the filing of the opposition.
The applicants opposed the request on the basis that there had been a delay in making the request and also because they submitted that it was clear that the respective marks OLD BIKE MART and BIKE MART were not identical in the context of Section 5(1).
Allowing the amendment the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had filed their request as soon as the matter had come to their attention. Additionally he did not believe that they had an unarguable case in the context of Section 5(1).