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 >> TELSTRA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o06004 (8 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o06004.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o06004, [2004] UKIntelP o6004
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TELSTRA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o06004 (8 March 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o06004
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/060/04
- Decision date
- 8 March 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr O Morris
- Mark
- TELSTRA
- Classes
- 35
- Applicant
- Telstra Corporation Limited
- Opponent
- Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA
- Opposition
- Applicant request for an extension of time to file evidence
Result
Applicant request for an extension of time - Request refused.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
In these opposition proceedings the opponent had filed only part of their evidence within the three month period allowed and they had been allowed an extension of time to complete their evidence. The applicant had not objected.
The applicant filed a witness statement from their trade mark attorney within the three month period allowed and requested additional time to consider whether or not to file evidence from a phonetics expert in response to the opponent's evidence; also the attorney handling the case was away from the office because his wife was giving birth to their second child. The opponent objected on the basis that the reasons given for the request for an extension of time were inadequate.
The Hearing Officer considered the request carefully and concluded that it should be refused. There was no evidence as to what steps, if any, had been taken to obtain the expert evidence or even if it were to be sought. As regards the attorney's absence from the office there was no reasons given as to the extent of any absence or why another attorney within the office could not carry the case forward. The fact that the opponents had been granted an extension was not relevant. That request had been dealt with on its merits and allowed. Extension request refused.