Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
26 April 2005
Hearing Officer
Mrs A Corbett
Whitby Fudge
Dennis Harland & Susan Harland
Interlocutory hearing in relation to a request for an extension of time in opposition proceedings.


TM9 and supporting letter to be copied to the other side by close of play on the day of the hearing.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Neither Rules nor Practice Directions stipulate a time limit for the copying of TM9's to other parties.


The applicant had filed a request for an extension of time (Form TM9), which had been refused by the registry because the reasons given for the request were insufficient. The applicant provided further information which had persuaded the registry to reverse its preliminary ruling. It then emerged that the TM9 had not been copied to the other side as required by Rule 68(2) and the published practice. The registry therefore withdrew its preliminary view and stated that the request for an extension would not be considered. A hearing was arranged at the applicant’s request, to hear the case for the request to be considered; the merits of the request were not before the Hearing Officer at this stage.

The failure to copy the TM9 to the other side was the result of an oversight on the part of the applicant's agent.

Reviewing the matter, the Hearing Officer noted that the request had been made in time. There was no set time laid down, either in the Rules or the Practice Directions, for the copying of the TM9 to the other side.

The Hearing Officer directed that the TM9 and supporting letter should be copied to the opponents by close of play that day.

The request would then be considered.

Full decision O/115/05 PDF document24Kb