Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/377/00
Decision date
6 October 2000
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
Mark
DEVICE
Classes
16
Registered Proprietor
The Gillette Company
Applicant for Revocation
Nicholas Dynes Gracey
Revocation
Appointment of a Hearing. Amendment of Pleadings.

Result

Appointment of Hearing - Request to postpone refused

Amendment of Pleadings - Pleadings amended

Points Of Interest

Summary

The Hearing Officer noted that the Registry is required to give parties 14 days notice of the appointment of a hearing. In order to meet this requirement the Office utilised the Post Office’s special delivery service which guarantees next day delivery. This service requires the recipient to sign for the postal delivery. However, Mr Gracey does not accept any post which requires a signature and as a result, and as a concession, all office correspondences and notifications of hearings etc are sent to Mr Gracey by first class post. In this case the notification had been sent on 26 July 2000 but Mr Gracey said he had not received it until 28 July 2000 and therefore that he had not had 14 clear days notice of the hearing. He asked for postponement. The Hearing Officer stated that as it was Mr Gracey’s decision to rely on first class post then a slight failure in this area was not sufficient grounds to defer a hearing.

Secondly, inter parties hearings are appointed on the basis that if one party wishes to have the hearing postponed then they must liaise with the other side and if agreed, suggest a new and acceptable date to the Registrar. Mr Gracey had not done this. Finally a late request on the morning of the hearing from Mr Gracey that he be allowed to take part in the hearing by way of a telephone conference link was refused because of the lateness of the request.

With regard to amendment of pleadings the Hearing Officer referred to a number of reported decisions which indicated that the Registrar had power to regulate procedures in or before the office in order to secure uniformity of practice and to administer the Trade Marks Act efficiently. The Hearing Officer went on to strike out certain paragraphs in the pleadings as not being relevant and put the case back on track as regards the timetable established by the Trade Mark Rules 2000.

Full decision O/377/00 PDF document358Kb