Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
ADIDAS SARL's Trade Mark
[1983] RPC 262
Court: QBD
Judgment Date: circa 1983
TRADE MARKS, TRADE NAMES AND DESIGNS - PROCEDURE RELATING TO TRADE MARKS AND PASSING OFF - PROCEDURE ON APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF TRADE MARK - OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS - EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE EVIDENCE - CONSTRUCTION OF RULES
Applicants in opposition proceedings were granted several extensions of time within which to file evidence. The registrar granted a further extension up to March 1982 but stated that that extension was final. The applicants requested a further extension from March onwards but that was refused in May. They applied for a hearing under Trade Marks Rules 1938 rr 116, 117 within one month of that refusal but the registrar refused on the ground that they should have applied within a month of the notification in March because he had indicated at that point that he proposed to exercise his discretion against the applicants. The applicants sought an order of certiorari in relation to the registrar's refusal to grant an extension of time: Held the usual practice, when dealing with the provisions of r 116, 117 was that the registrar wrote to a party stating that a further extension of time would be refused. However, that was regarded as a potential refusal, warning a party that he proposed to exercise his discretion adversely unless that party applied for a hearing within a month. The refusal of an extension in May was the relevant warning and as the applicants had applied for a hearing within the time limit the registrar was bound under the rules, to grant a hearing. He had misdirected himself as to the entitlement to be heard under r 116 and the application for certiorari would be granted.
