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 >> MORE 4 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o25008 (2 September 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o25008.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o25008
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MORE 4 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o25008 (2 September 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o25008
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/250/08
- Decision date
- 2 September 2008
- Hearing officer
- Mrs J Pike
- Mark
- MORE 4
- Classes
- 09, 16, 41
- Applicant
- Channel Four Television Corporation
- Opponent
- Meredith Corporation
- Opposition
- Interlocutory hearing to discuss failure to file Form 8 and Counterstatement
Result
Failure to file TM8 and Counterstatement: Application deemed withdrawn.
Points Of Interest
- The requirements of Rule 13A(1) are mandatory.
Summary
The opponent filed opposition on 26 March 2007 and the necessary papers were sent to the applicant with the date of 26 June 2007 set as a deadline for filing a TM8 and Counterstatement. A “cooling off” period was requested by both parties on 26 June 2007 and both parties were advised by the Registry of an inextensible date for the expiry of the “cooling off” period of 26 March 2008. If matters were not settled or a TM8 and counterstatement filed by that date the application would be deemed withdrawn in accordance with Rule 13A(1) of the Trade Mark Rules 2000 (as amended).
On 25 March 2008 the registry received a fax from the opponent, and signed by both parties, requesting suspension of the proceedings. Initially the Registry asked for further details to justify the request. When the opponent responded to say that it could provide no further details the Registry realised its mistake and advised the applicant that no extension of the cooling off period was possible and that as no TM8 and Counterstatement had been filed by the due date the application in suit was deemed withdrawn under Rule 13A(1).
The applicant wrote to the Registry and requested a hearing at which it made submissions to the effect that the request for a stay in the proceedings was sufficient to indicate that the applicant was still interested in the application and could stand in the place of a Form TM8 and Counterstatement. The Hearing Officer rejected such arguments and pointed to the requirement to use standard forms or replicas of such forms. Secondly the requirements of Rule 13A(1) were mandatory and in all the circumstances the application must be deemed withdrawn.