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 >> British Numberplate Manufacturers Association v Hills Numberplates Limited (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o06605 (15 March 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o06605.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o6605, [2005] UKIntelP o06605

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


British Numberplate Manufacturers Association v Hills Numberplates Limited [2005] UKIntelP o06605 (15 March 2005)

For the whole decision click here: o06605

Patent decision

BL number
O/066/05
Concerning rights in
GB 2376437
Hearing Officer
Mr R C Kennell
Decision date
15 March 2005
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
British Numberplate Manufacturers Association v Hills Numberplates Limited
Provisions discussed
PA.1977 sections 7, 72(1), 107, 130(7); Interpretation Act 1978 section 5
Keywords
Costs, Revocation
Related Decisions
None

Summary

Preliminary decision

PA section 72(1) allows 'any person' to apply for revocation and the Interpretation Act 1978 section 5 defines 'person' as including 'a body of persons ... unincorporate' (subject to a contrary intention in the Act in question). However - distinguishing Oystertec plcs Patent [2003] RPC 29 to the effect that Parliament intended 'anyone' to be able to apply for revocation - the hearing officer held that the claimant (BNMA) as an unincorporated association was not entitled to apply in its own name in the light of general case law to the effect that an unincorporated association could not bring any proceedings. He did not accept (i) that a contrary intention could be found via PA section 130(7) and the interpretation of analogous provisions of the EPC by the EPO Boards of Appeal, or (ii) that section 72(1) should necessarily be interpreted by the Patent Office in the same way as PA section 7 to exclude unincorporated associations.

The hearing officer was prepared to allow the application to proceed in with the substitution of another applicant, subject to a guarantee in relation to costs already incurred in the proceedings and to the payment of costs in respect of the preliminary hearing. He declined to require the individual members of the BNMA to be bound by the decision of the comptroller if the application did proceed. He also saw no justification at present for security for costs higher than the £2000 already offered by the claimant.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o06605.html