This site uses cookies to help make it more useful and reliable. Our cookies page explains what they are, which ones we use, and how you can manage or remove them.

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/060/04
Decision date
8 March 2004
Hearing officer
Mr O Morris
Mark
TELSTRA
Classes
35
Applicant
Telstra Corporation Limited
Opponent
Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA
Opposition
Applicant request for an extension of time to file evidence

Result

Applicant request for an extension of time - Request refused.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. None

Summary

In these opposition proceedings the opponent had filed only part of their evidence within the three month period allowed and they had been allowed an extension of time to complete their evidence. The applicant had not objected.

The applicant filed a witness statement from their trade mark attorney within the three month period allowed and requested additional time to consider whether or not to file evidence from a phonetics expert in response to the opponent's evidence; also the attorney handling the case was away from the office because his wife was giving birth to their second child. The opponent objected on the basis that the reasons given for the request for an extension of time were inadequate.

The Hearing Officer considered the request carefully and concluded that it should be refused. There was no evidence as to what steps, if any, had been taken to obtain the expert evidence or even if it were to be sought. As regards the attorney's absence from the office there was no reasons given as to the extent of any absence or why another attorney within the office could not carry the case forward. The fact that the opponents had been granted an extension was not relevant. That request had been dealt with on its merits and allowed. Extension request refused.

Full decision O/060/04 PDF document33Kb