For the whole decision click here: o01307
Result
Error corrected under Rule 66; parties’ positions restored to the position pre-error.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The Registry had wrongly indicated that the surrender of the mark by the proprietor had also brought the revocation action to a close and that TM8 and counterstatement would no longer be required.
In view of the possible effect this could have on claims of seniority in a related CTM application the agent for the registered proprietor queried this and the Registry again erred in giving the requested assurance.
The applicant for revocation then asked for a declaration that the mark would have been revoked had surrender not taken place. The time for filing TM8 and counterstatement had meantime expired.
Following a hearing respecting these matters the Hearing Officer decided that the errors should be corrected by exercise of Rule 66 and the parties returned to the position they would have been in had the error not taken place.