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!
 |
[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 >> ADRENALIN (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2000] UKIntelP o11900 (2 March 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o11900.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o11900 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o11900
Result
Appeal re costs - Appeal allowed but no costs awarded
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 1 October 1999 (SRIS O/336/99) the Hearing Officer essentially allowed Revocation and Invalidation. The registered proprietor appealed that decision to the Appointed Person on the basis that he had requested to be heard before the Registrar issued his decision and that request had been overlooked. In his decision dated 6 December 1999 (SRIS O/440/99) the Appointed Person set aside the Hearing Officer’s decision and remitted the matter to the Registrar. The registered proprietor appealed on the matter of costs.
The registered proprietor sought costs either from the Registrar because he felt that the case had not been handled effectively and/or against the applicant for revocation and invalidation because they had in effect added to the mis-handling of the case.
The Appointed Person stated that the Hearing Officer had been acting in a judicial capacity when he had issued his decision dated 1 October 1999. The fact that that decision had been set aside was not a good or indeed any reason for awarding costs against the Registrar. Additionally as the applicant had only played a small part in the appeal there was no grounds for awarding costs against it. In conclusion the Appointed Person decided that the right decision was to decline to make any award of costs to either party.
