British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
ADRENALIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o08906 (21 March 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o08906.html
Cite as:
[2006] UKIntelP o08906,
[2006] UKIntelP o8906
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
ADRENALIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o08906 (21 March 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o08906
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/089/06
- Decision date
- 21 March 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
- Mark
- ADRENALIN
- Classes
- 03, 09, 38
- Applicant
- Nicholas Dynes Gracey
- Opponent (Opposition now withdrawn)
- Hi Tec Sports Plc
- Appeal against a decision of the Registrar's Hearing Officer in respect of certain procedural matters during and after the pendency of opposition proceedings.
Result
Appeal dismissed. -
Points Of Interest
-
1. Provision of statements of reasons for decision; Human Rights; natural justice
-
2. Procedural irregularities; correction of.
Summary
Just prior to the withdrawal of opposition proceedings a hearing had been held concerning certain procedural matters. The Hearing Officer had subsequently set out his decision and his reasons in a 5 page letter. Later, out of time and not by means of a TM5, the applicant requested a full statement of the Hearing Officer's reasons. The opposition having been withdrawn the Registry declined to provide the statement as requested. The applicant sought and was given a hearing concerning this refusal. Following the hearing the Hearing Officer upheld the previous decision not to provide the statement. The applicant appealed to the Appointed Person, and cited the Human Rights Act 1998 in support of his request.
The Appointed Person noted that; the original request was indeed irregular: the proceedings having been terminated the applicant was no longer a party to any proceedings before the Registrar, and the Hearing Officer's letter had provided a very full statement of his reasons. The appeal was dismissed.