Consolidated Developments Ltd v Cooper [2018] EWHC 1727 (Ch) (06 July 2018)

Consolidated Developments Ltd v Cooper [2018] EWHC 1727 (Ch) (06 July 2018)

The High Court has jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence on appeal in trade mark revocation proceedings, but the discretion to do so is governed by the Ladd v Marshall criteria, the overriding objective, and relevant factors from Hunt-Wesson. In this case, the additional evidence could and should have been filed earlier, was not shown to have an important influence on the result, and its admission would prejudice the respondent and undermine finality. The Hearing Officer made no error in his assessment of genuine use for the 641 Mark. Both appeals are dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1727 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Consolidated Developments Limited; Defendant/appellant: Andrew Alexander Cooper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Revocation and Appeal / High Court Appeal From IPO and Appointed Person
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Revocation, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Genuine Use of Trade Marks, Discretion to Remit Cases, Finality in Litigation
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Revocation Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Genuine Use of Trade Marks Discretion to Remit Cases Finality in Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consolidated Developments Limited

Claimant/respondent

Andrew Alexander Cooper

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Revocation and Appeal / High Court Appeal From IPO and Appointed Person

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence on appeal from the IPO in trade mark revocation proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the discretion to admit fresh evidence should be exercised in this case
  3. 3 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in refusing to revoke the 641 Mark for advertising services

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence on appeal in trade mark revocation proceedings, but the discretion to do so is governed by the Ladd v Marshall criteria, the overriding objective, and relevant factors from Hunt-Wesson. In this case, the additional evidence could and should have been filed earlier, was not shown to have an important influence on the result, and its admission would prejudice the respondent and undermine finality. The Hearing Officer made no error in his assessment of genuine use for the 641 Mark. Both appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed