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 Officer declined leave.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Justice indicated that in these circumstances, where no significant adjournment was required and no particular prejudice suffered by the other party, and the point might not be difficult, leave should be given. The court had adequate powers in costs and other directions to ensure justice. No general rule could be drawn, and in many cases an adjournment might not be appropriate.
Neuberger J
Times 28-Nov-2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd HL 1987
Houses were built on defective foundations. The purchasers sued the builders and later the architects who designed them. The defendants argued that the houses were doomed from the start so that the cause of action accrued, not when the physical . .
See Also – E I Du Pont de Nemours and Co v S T Dupont (1) ChD 31-Oct-2002
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 . .
Cited by:
See also – E I Du Pont de Nemours and Co v S T Dupont (1) ChD 31-Oct-2002
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 . .
Appeal from – E I Du Pont De Nemours and Company v S T Dupont; Du Pont Trade Mark CA 10-Oct-2003
The court considered the circumstances under which a Hearing Officer’s decision could be reversed on appeal: ‘Those experienced in cases such as these, such as the Hearing Officer, would have known that the sort of evidence normally adduced on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.178265