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 >> LEATHER MASTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o08404 (20 January 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o08404.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o08404, [2004] UKIntelP o8404
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
LEATHER MASTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o08404 (20 January 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o08404
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/084/04
- Decision date
- 20 January 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
- Mark
- LEATHER MASTER
- Classes
- 02, 03, 37
- Applicant
- K.M.L. Invest AB
- Opponent
- Uniters S.p.A
- Opposition
- Failure to file Form TM8 in Opposition proceedings. Application deemed abandoned. Request by applicant to allow proceedings to continue.
Result
Failure to file TM8 - Appeal dismissed. Application deemed abandoned.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See also Hearing Officer’s decision dated 2 April 2003 (BL O/090/03).
Summary
This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision of 2 April; 2003 (BL O/090/03) in which he decided that the provisions of Rule 13(6) of the Trade Marks Rules 2000 were mandatory and that the application should be deemed abandoned.
Before the Appointed Person the applicant relied upon essentially the same arguments as before the Hearing Officer. They contended that they had in substance complied with the requirements of Rule 13(3) and in any event they should be granted relief from the provisions for Rule 13(6).
The Appointed Person carefully examined the applicable Section of the Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 66 which required the use of forms and the associated Rule 3 of the Trade Marks Rules 2000. The use of forms was mandatory and while information might be provided by way of counterstatement and letter this was insufficient to comply with Rule 13(3). The requirements of Rule 13(6) followed and the application must be deemed abandoned.
The Appointed Person also considered Rule 68(1) and (3) and confirmed that the Registrar had no power to grant an extension. Nor could Rules 57 and 66 assist the applicant.