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 >> JCB (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o19803 (25 June 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o19803.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o19803
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
JCB (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o19803 (25 June 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o19803
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/198/03
- Decision date
- 25 June 2003
- Hearing officer
- Professor Ruth Annand
- Mark
- JCB
- Classes
- 36
- Applicant
- J C Bamford Excavators Limited
- Opponent
- JCB Co Ltd
- Opposition
- 1. Section 5(2)(b) : Appeal to the Appointed Person 2. Request for a stay of the appeal
Result
Section 5(2)(b) : Appeal to the Appointed Person: - Appeal dismissed.
Request for a stay of the appeal: - Request refused.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Applicant reliance on Human Rights Act rebutted.
- 2. Opponent request for increased costs not granted.
Summary
The applicant appealed the Hearing Officers decision of 3 January 2003 (BL O/004/03) to the Appointed Person. The basis of the appeal was the fact that the opponent’s evidence had shown that they had not used their mark in respect of all the services in their specification so the applicants had filed a request for partial revocation of the opponent’s registration. As no dates were specially mentioned the five year revocation was assumed to be for the five year period 31 January 1998 to 31 January 2003. The filing date of the application in suit was 30 January 1996.
Subsequently, the applicant requested a stay of the appeal to await the outcome of the revocation proceedings.
The applicant said they had not filed revocation proceedings earlier because they thought they would be successful in the opposition proceedings; they had wished to avoid further proceedings with the opponents and they had sought to avoid additional costs. The opponents objected to any stay of the appeal.
The Appointed Person refused to grant a stay of the appeal because the applicant had taken a deliberate decision as to how they should proceed. That was their choice but one by which they must abide. Additionally, there was no guarantee that they would be successful in the revocation proceedings and in any event the relevant date was after the date of application of the mark in suit.
Having rejected the request for a stay of the appeal the Appointed Person also dismissed the appeal since there had been no criticism of the Hearing Officer’s decision.