Parties appealed from decisions of the Trade Marks Registry, and requested leave to introduce new evidence.
Held: It was not agreed what rules applied on appeals under the 1938 Act. The Trade Mark system had public interest effects as well as private law. The rules governing appeals were therefore different from other regimes. The courts should adopt a more relaxed attitude, and treat the appeal as a full re-hearing rather than as a review, and that, accordingly fresh evidence might be admissible.
Judges:
Neuberger J
Citations:
Times 07-Nov-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003, [2003] EWCA 1368
Statutes:
Trade Marks Act 1938 18, Civil Procedure Rules 52.11(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – ‘Wunderkind’: Application No 2156362A TMR 15-Aug-2001
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .
See also – E I Du Pont de Nemours and Co v S T Dupont (2) ChD 22-Nov-2002
The parties had appeared before a hearing officer at the Trade Marks registry. The opponent of the registration sought leave to argue an additional point which, though unpleaded, could have been argued without any significant adjournment. The . .
Cited by:
See Also – E I Du Pont de Nemours and Co v S T Dupont (2) ChD 22-Nov-2002
The parties had appeared before a hearing officer at the Trade Marks registry. The opponent of the registration sought leave to argue an additional point which, though unpleaded, could have been argued without any significant adjournment. The . .
Cited – Haw and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Dec-2007
The defendants appealed convictions for contempt of court, on the basis of having wilfully interrupted the court. The respondent said that no appeal lay.
Held: The statute was ambiguous, and ‘there can be no good reason why a person convicted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Evidence, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.178034