Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
27 June 2000
Hearing Officer
Ms L Adams
09, 16, 38, 41, 42
Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui
Dr M H Z Khan on behalf of The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain
Request by the opponents for an extension of time for the filing of their evidence.


Request for an extension of time: - Request refused.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Opponents deemed to have withdrawn their opposition.
  • 2. The opponents appealed this decision to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 9 October 2000 (BL O/481/00) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision to refuse an extension of time.


Following the launching of opposition proceedings and the filing of a counterstatement the opponents were allowed the normal period of three months to 3 March 2000 for the filing of their evidence in support of grounds under Sections 3(3)(b), 3(6) and 5(4)(a).

On 3 March the opponents requested an extension of time of three months for the filing of their evidence. They stated that the applicant, a former leader of The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, had information which he was not willing to release to the opponents. As a result enquiries had to be made elsewhere and this was taking time. The Registry provisionally granted the extension sought but the applicant objected to the grant of any extension and requested a hearing. At the same time the applicant refuted the claim by the opponents that they had asked him for any information for filing in these proceedings. Prior to the hearing on 26 April 2000 the opponents’ Trade Mark Agents wrote to the Registry to say that no request for information had been made to the applicant since August 1999. As he had declined at that time to assist, enquiries were being pursued with the Charities Commission in an effort to force the applicant to provide financial and other information. The applicant pressed the Registrar to refuse the request and said the opponents did not appear to be acting with diligence.

The Hearing Officer refused the request for an extension of time since the opponents had filed no evidence by the date of the hearing; they had not indicated if evidence had been prepared and could be filed within the time requested and they had only referred to the filing of evidence to support the ground under Section 5(4)(a). No mention had been made of the other grounds which also required the support of evidence.

Full decision O/220/00 PDF document26Kb