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 >> RED LETTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o21002 (17 May 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o21002.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o21002
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
RED LETTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o21002 (17 May 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o21002
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/210/02
- Decision date
- 17 May 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr O Morris
- Mark
- RED LETTER
- Classes
- 09, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42
- Applicant
- Red Letter Days PLC
- Opponent
- Redenvelope Inc
- Opposition
- Request for an extension of time to file evidence in reply under Rule 13(10) of the Trade Mark Rules 2000
Result
Request for an extension of time to file evidence in reply: - Request refused.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The applicant’s application was filed on 6 August 1999 and advertised for opposition purposes on 31 May 2000. Opposition was filed on 1 September 2000 and following the filing of a Counterstatement, the opponent’s evidence was filed on 27 July 2001. The opponents were then set a period of three months up to 25 January 2002 to file evidence in reply if they so wished. On that date they requested an extension of time of three months to file evidence in reply for the following reasons:-
(i) The opponents said they needed more time to analysis the applicants evidence;
(ii) Consider further the manner in which to respond to the applicants evidence; and
(iii) Discussions were taking between the parties in an effort to resolve the dispute amicably.
The applicants objected to the grant of any extension and following an inter-locutory hearing the Hearing Officer refused the extension for the following reasons:
(a) The applicants evidence was not voluminous as claimed. The opponents had not said why it had taken such a long period to consider it; neither had they indicated what actions were necessary to respond other than to say that further research was necessary. They had not said what research they needed to carry out or even if such research was under way.
(b) The hearing had taken place some two months after the closing date. No evidence or even draft evidence was placed before the Hearing Officer for consideration.
(c) The applicant indicated that the approach about discussions for a settlement had only been made by the opponents a few days before the date for filing the evidence in reply.
(d) The opponents were not able to substantiate a claim to any special circumstances in support of their request for an extension of time.