Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/108/98
Decision date
11 May 1998
Hearing Officer
Mr S J Probert
Mark
LIQUID FORCE
Classes
25
Applicant
Earth & Ocean Sports Inc
Opponent
Ride Snowboard Company
Opposition
Request for an extension of time to file evidence in opposition proceedings

Result

Request for extension of time allowed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. The applicants appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 10 November 1998 the Appointed Person, with some reservations, upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision. See LIQUID FORCE [1999] RPC 429.

Summary

The above application was advertised for opposition purposes on 6 November 1996 and opposition was filed on 5 February 1997. A counterstatement was filed on 12 May 1997 and the opponent was set a period to 15 August, 1997 to file its evidence. On 13 August the opponent requested an extension of time until 15 November 1997. This extension request was unopposed by the applicant and granted by the Registrar. On the 14 November a further request was made on the basis of negotiations between the parties and a meeting between the presidents of the parties was due to take place the same day. The applicant objected to the grant of further time and the opponent requested a hearing which took place on 5 March 1998.

At the hearing the opponent filed its evidence and indicated that if an extension was not allowed and proceedings abandoned, it would immediately file for invalidation. The opponent claimed it had been actively preparing its evidence during the relevant period even though the amount of that evidence was not great. The applicant objected on the basis that the time required by the opponent was unduly long in the light of the quantity of evidence filed; the reasons given were weak and, it was claimed, no negotiations had taken place.

The Hearing Officer took note of all the submissions and accepting that there was disagreement about the state of negotiation, allowed the extension because the evidence was filed and it was better to proceed with these proceedings rather than have to deal with fresh proceedings by way of an invalidation action.

The Hearing Officer was shown a photocopy of a Statutory Declaration by the president of the applicant’s company to the effect that no negotiations had taken place between the parties. Because the evidence was not part of the proceedings; because it had come to hand late and there was no opportunity for the other party to respond, the Hearing Officer gave little weight to this declaration.

Full decision O/108/98 PDF document22Kb