BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> GAP CHALLENGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o08700 (9 March 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o08700.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o08700, [2000] UKIntelP o8700

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


GAP CHALLENGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o08700 (9 March 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o08700

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/087/00
Decision date
9 March 2000
Hearing officer
Mr J Parker
Mark
GAP CHALLENGE
Classes
39, 41
Applicants
World Challenge Exhibitions Ltd
Opponents
Gap Activity Projects (GAP) Limited
Opposition
Request by the applicants for an extension of time for the filing of their evidence

Result

Request for an extension of time: - Request allowed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

Following the filing of opposition and counterstatement the opponents were allowed the normal period of three months to file their evidence. Subsequently they asked for an extension of three months and this was granted. Their evidence was filed within the extended period.

The applicants filed some of their evidence within the three month period allowed and asked for an extension of time of two months to complete their evidence. The opponents objected to any grant of an extension and asked to be heard in the matter.

At the Hearing the applicants explained why further time was required and indicated that two further statutory declarations were now available for filing. It was hoped to file further declarations but they might not be ready before the end of the requested period.

The opponents pointed out that they had put the applicants on warning at the outset that they would not consent to any extensions of time. They argued that their request for an extension had been justified but the applicants had given insufficient reasons for their request.

The Hearing Officer allowed the two months extension requested and allowed into the proceedings the declarations which were ready to be filed. No extension beyond this period allowed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o08700.html