 |
[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 >> THE MUSLIM PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o22000 (27 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o22000.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o22000 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o22000
Result
Request for an extension of time: - Request refused.
Points Of Interest
Summary
Following the launching of opposition proceedings and the filing of a counterstatement the opponents were allowed the normal period of three months to 3 March 2000 for the filing of their evidence in support of grounds under Sections 3(3)(b), 3(6) and 5(4)(a).
On 3 March the opponents requested an extension of time of three months for the filing of their evidence. They stated that the applicant, a former leader of The Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, had information which he was not willing to release to the opponents. As a result enquiries had to be made elsewhere and this was taking time. The Registry provisionally granted the extension sought but the applicant objected to the grant of any extension and requested a hearing. At the same time the applicant refuted the claim by the opponents that they had asked him for any information for filing in these proceedings. Prior to the hearing on 26 April 2000 the opponents’ Trade Mark Agents wrote to the Registry to say that no request for information had been made to the applicant since August 1999. As he had declined at that time to assist, enquiries were being pursued with the Charities Commission in an effort to force the applicant to provide financial and other information. The applicant pressed the Registrar to refuse the request and said the opponents did not appear to be acting with diligence.
The Hearing Officer refused the request for an extension of time since the opponents had filed no evidence by the date of the hearing; they had not indicated if evidence had been prepared and could be filed within the time requested and they had only referred to the filing of evidence to support the ground under Section 5(4)(a). No mention had been made of the other grounds which also required the support of evidence.