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 >> Tannoy Limited (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o08307 (22 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o08307.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o8307, [2007] UKIntelP o08307 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o08307
Summary
Reinstatement was sought after the application had been treated as refused for failure to reply to an examination report. The application had been assigned from Goodmans to Tannoy by the CEO of Tannoy prior to the deadline for responding to the examination report but he had unintentionally and inadvertently omitted to tell the staff of either company of the assignment. Goodmans entered into administration and decided not to pursue the application, the person taking this decision not being aware that Goodmans no longer owned the application. The Technical Director of Tannoy decided not to take on the application but this decision was taken without the knowledge that Tannoy already owned the application. The application was subsequently treated as refused under section 20(1) for failure to comply with the requirements of the Act and rules before the expiry of the rule 34 period. The hearing officer found that the intentions of the CEO of Tannoy rather than the Technical Director best reflected the intentions of the applicant in this case. He also found that had the Technical Director been aware of the assignment he would have processed the application through to grant. He found that the unintentional failure of the CEO to inform his staff of the assignment led directly to the failure of Tannoy to reply directly to the examination report which in turn led directly to the refusal of the application under section 20(1). The request for reinstatement was therefore allowed.
