Following a hearing appointed to consider whether the registered proprietor’s evidence of use filed under Rule 31(2) was sufficient to discharge the onus on him, the Registrar’s Hearing Officer had ruled that it was not and had deemed the proprietor’s opposition to the revocation to be ended, under Rule 31(3) (see BL O/327/04). The registered proprietor appealed to the Appointed Person against this decision.
Having reviewed the evidence provided by the registered proprietor Mr Hobbs concluded that ‘taken as a whole (it) was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 31(2)’ and ‘the defence thereby, disclosed could be regarded to be contestable’. In that case ‘it was not open to the Hearing Officer to use Rule 31(3) either as a basis for sanctioning the (registered proprietor) for default . . . . . or as a basis for proceeding to a final determination of the application . . . . .. without following the adversarial procedure envisaged by Rules 31(4) to 31(10).’ The Hearing Officer had ‘gone further than envisaged by the decision of the Hearing Officer in the CARTE BLEUE case.’ Rule 31(3) ‘did not enable her to do so’.
The Hearing Officer’s decision was set aside.
Citations:
[2005] UKIntelP o19105
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.456389
