Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/276/00
Decision date
1 August 2000
Appointed Person
Mr S Thorley QC
Mark
PHILOSOPHY
Classes
25
Applicant for Revocation
Alberta Ferretti
Registered Proprietor
Nicholas Dynes Gracey
Revocation
1. Appeal against the Appointed Person’s decision dated 4 May 20002. Request that the Appointed Person amend his decision

Result

Appeal against the Appointed Person's decision - Appeal refused

Request that the Appointed Person amend his decision - Request refused

Points Of Interest

  • 1. This was an appeal from the Appointed Person’s decision dated 4 May 2000 (SRIS O/168/00).

Summary

In relation to a request for discovery, the registered proprietor had sought information from a declarant about the location and name of a public house which the declarant had claimed to visit during a trip to Morfa Nevign, North Wales during which he had also claimed to have interviewed the registered proprietor. The declarant had stated that the registered proprietor was barred from the pub in question but claimed to have no memory of the name of the pub or no documents available to assist his recollection.

The Registrar had refused to order discovery and the Appointed Person had upheld that decision. The registered proprietor appealed the decision back to the Appointed Person on the grounds that he had attributed agreement of the registered proprietor to a proposal about a re-visit by the declarant to North Wales, which the registered proprietor stated that he had not given. He asked for the Appointed Person to amend his decision accordingly. Following correspondence about the power of the Appointed Person to alter his decision before it was sealed, a further hearing was arranged.

At the outset to his decision the Appointed Person reviewed carefully the powers of a High Court Judge to re-open matters after the issue of a decision and noted that this could only be done in the most exceptional circumstances. He considered that the Appointed Person had the same powers as a High Court Judge in this respect but again stated that amendment of an issued decision could only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

In relation to the case at issue the Appointed Person noted that the registered proprietor had raised three issues. The first related to the proper interpretation of the Human Rights Act; the second related to the assumptions made about obtaining the name of the pub by the declarant and the third about costs awarded to the applicant for revocation.

As regards the first issue the Appointed Person was of the view that submissions about the Human Rights Act could have been made at the first hearing. They were not so, it was not possible to introduce this new line of action at this late stage.

As regards the second issue, and the claimed error, the Appointed Person noted that the proposal about a re-visit to North Wales to obtain the necessary information had been made by the applicants Counsel. The registered proprietor had not disputed that suggestion at the hearing. Having considered the matter fully the Appointed Person did not feel that the circumstances before him were exceptional in that there would be no change in his decision. He therefore decided that it would not be appropriate to re-open the original hearing and amend his decision.

In the Appointed Person’s view the matter of costs had been fully ventilated at the previous hearing and a ruling given. That matter could not be re-visited.

Full decision O/276/00 PDF document50Kb