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 >> Michaels DRINKS STOP (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o33304 (8 November 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o33304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o33304
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Michaels DRINKS STOP (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o33304 (8 November 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o33304
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/333/04
- Decision date
- 8 November 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr C Bowen
- Mark
- Michaels DRINKS STOP
- Classes
- 35
- Applicant
- Michaels Foodmarket, Michaels Drinkstop Ltd & Michaels Wholesale Ltd
- Opponent
- Drinkstop Ltd
- Interlocutory hearing to determine the legal status of the applicants in Opposition Proceedings
Result
Form of application amended; a new date set for the filing of evidence.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Legal personality of applicant; partnerships at will; trading style.
- 2. Witness statements.
- 3. Amendments to form of application.
Summary
The opponent claimed, inter alia, that Michaels Foodmarket was not a legal entity and hence could have no bona fide intention of using the mark. The application did not meet the requirements of Section 32; a filing date should not have been accorded and even if the application form were amended a new filing date should be given.
Correspondence between the applicants and the Registry ensued. Michaels Foodmarket, it emerged was the trading style of a partnership at will of three named individuals.
A hearing was arranged to settle the matter of an amended form of application and the appropriate filing date it should be given.
In the result the Hearing Officer ruled that there had been no change in the proprietorship of the application; the error in the application was correctable under the provisions of Section 39(2)(a); the pleadings should be amended and ‘on the initiative of the Registrar’ a new date was set for the filing of the opponent’s evidence-in-chief.