Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 January 2002
Appointed Person
Mr S Thorley QC
03, 05, 09, 10
Registered Proprietor/Appellant
Nicholas Dynes Gracey
Applicants for Invalidation/Respondents
Hi-Tec Sports Plc
Appeal against costs decision in Invalidation Proceedings


Appeal dismissed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Costs against the Registrar : ".... the making of such an award forms no part of the powers of the Appointed Person on an appeal in inter partes proceedings."


This was an appeal by the registered proprietor against a decision of the Registrar’s Hearing Officer not to award him costs in respect of a preliminary hearing by which the invalidation action had been struck out (see BL O/469/01). The Appointed Person, (Mr Simon Thorley QC), reviewed the matter to be considered in hearing appeals from exercises of the Registrar’s discretion and the law and practice governing awards of costs in proceedings before the Registrar. Applying these considerations to the matter in hand, Mr Thorley concluded that the Registrar’s Hearing officer had not been wrong in his decision to refuse an award of costs to the registered proprietor/appellant. He noted that the registered proprietor had burdened a hearing for an extension of time with a 54 page fax, largely concerned with other matters, and he remarked that "proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry must be carried out in accordance with the overriding objective of any legal proceedings, particularly of ensuring that all cases are dealt with expeditiously, fairly and with a view to saving expense (see CPR Part 1.1)". He dismissed the appeal for a reversal of the Hearing Officer’s decision.

He further dismissed the appellants request for an order for wasted costs, since this had not been a matter before the Hearing Officer at the original hearing.

Finally, he refused to award costs against the Registrar, remarking that the making of such an award forms no part of the powers of the Appointed Person on an appeal in inter partes proceedings.

He awarded costs against the appellant.

Full decision O/040/02 PDF document36Kb