Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/334/06
Decision date
22 November 2006
Appointed Person
Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
Mark
FELENDIL Felendil
Classes
05
Applicant
Ratiopharm GMBH
Opponent
Astrazeneca AB
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Request for an extension of time to the Appointed Person: Request refused as not appropriate.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. As per summary.
  • 2. See also decision dated 8 June 2006 (BL O/148/06).
  • 3. Opponent appealed decision of 8 June 2006 to the Appointed Person. Appeal dismissed. See decision dated 14 March 2007 (BL O/079/07).

Summary

Request to amend pleadings. Request to cross-examine one of applicant’s witnesses.

By way of background the substantive bearing on this case has already taken place and the Hearing Officer issued his decision on 8 June 2006 (BL O/148/06). The opponent was successful in its opposition under Section 5(2)(b).

The background to this appeal in respect of a procedural matter was that the opponent requested disclosure under Rule 57 of the Trade Mark Rules and permission to amend its pleadings to include a Section 3(6) ground of opposition. Following a hearing the Hearing Officer refused both requests by way of her letter dated 24 February 2006 and indicated that if either party wished to appeal her decision they should file a Form TM5 requesting a statement of grounds within one month from the date of the letter.

The opponent decided not to appeal the decision but instead appealed to the Appointed Person and it also asked the Appointed Person for an extension of time. As regards the request for an extension of time the Appointed Person explained that any request for an extension of time must be made to the Registrar in the first instance as he had no authority to grant extensions of time unless they had been considered by the Registrar. He, therefore, refused to consider the request for an extension of time and as a consequence the appeal in relation to the matters at issue also fell.

Full decision O/334/06 PDF document20Kb