Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
24 November 1998
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
09, 28
Kabushiki Kaisha Namco (Namco Limited)
The Edge Interactive Media Inc & The Edge Interactive Media Limited
Request by the applicant for an extension of time within which to file its evidence


Request for an extension of time - Request allowed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Prior to the hearing the opponent had asked for postponement on the grounds that as he spent most of his time in the USA he had only become aware of the appointed date a few days before the hearing. The Hearing Officer refused to postpone on the basis that notice of the hearing had been sent to the opponent’s UK address for service. Subsequent to notification of the Hearing Officer’s decision the opponent had expressed displeasure that a decision had been taken in his absence. In his decision the Hearing Officer made the point that it was the opponent’s responsibility to ensure that documents sent to his UK address for service were forwarded timeously.
  • 2. The opponent appealed the Hearing Officer's decision to the Appointed Person. In his decision, dated 20 April 1999 (BL O/150/99) the Appointed Person, in the absence of the opponent, upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision.


The opponent and the applicant had each had one extension of time within which to file their evidence. The applicant requested a further extension in order to complete its evidence. This additional evidence consisted of declarations from Japanese Officers of the Company and there had been delays because in the first instance the most appropriate Officer had been unavailable. This meant that his deputy had to verify the appropriate material and have the necessary translations undertaken. Additionally sales figures from the UK Office had to be verified in Japan before submission. The opponent objected to the grant of any further time to the applicant as the reasons given for the request were not very compelling.

The Hearing Officer considered all the submissions and decided that the applicant had made out a reasonable case for the grant of an extension of time so that the additional evidence filed could be accepted into the proceedings.

Full decision O/236/98 PDF document12Kb