Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/335/02
Decision date
14 August 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr E S Smith
Mark
ORANGE
Classes
03, 05, 29, 30
Applicant
Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd
Opponent
Mars UK Ltd
Interlocutory Hearing in Opposition Proceedings

Result

Earlier trade marks cited in amended notice - Struck out.

Extension of time - Refused.

Proceedings permitted to continue - Reduced to Section 5(2) alone.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Amendment of pleadings; Registrar’s inherent jurisdiction.
  • 2. Extensions of time.

Summary

The opponents had filed a notice of opposition citing various Sections of the Act as grounds and identifying themselves as proprietors of a series of earlier (UK) registered marks. The Registry queried their status as proprietors, at which the opponents filed an amended notice of opposition, increasing the number of opponents to three (the new opponents being the actual proprietor of the marks cited), and adding further (CTM) registered marks. The Registry objected to the addition of new opponents after the prescribed period, and this was conceded by the opponents. Subsequently the opponents sought an extension of time in which to file their evidence-in-chief. This was opposed by the applicants, who also objected to the admission of the additional earlier marks cited in the amended notice. A hearing was arranged.

The Hearing Officer accepted that the additional marks cited should be struck out, as no explanation for their earlier omission had ever been put forward. He noted however that this was the sole ground for their exclusion, since all the other factors pointing to an exercise of discretion were very much in the opponents’ favour.

Turning to consider the request for an extension of time the Hearing Officer noted that the explanations of the delay given at the time of the request lacked details; they had not been amplified later, and no evidence, final or in draft had been brought to the hearing. He refused the extension of time. The consequence of this was that all grounds, save Section 5(2) (which does not require evidence) were struck out.

Full decision O/335/02 PDF document27Kb