Consolidated Developments Ltd v Cooper

Consolidated Developments Ltd v Cooper

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 principles, the overriding objective, and additional factors relevant to trade mark cases. In this case, the additional evidence could and should have been filed earlier, was not shown to have probable important influence on the outcome, and its admission would prejudice the respondent and undermine finality. Therefore, the additional evidence was not admitted. The Hearing Officer did not err in his analysis of the evidence regarding the 641 Mark, and his findings were reasonable and adequately reasoned.

Parties
Claimant/respondent (ch 2017 000294), Respondent/claimant (ch 2018 000062): Consolidated Developments Limited; Defendant/appellant (ch 2017 000294), Appellant/defendant (ch 2018 000062): Andrew Alexander Cooper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Revocation and Appeal / Appeal From the UKIPO Hearing Officer's Decision, With Cross Appeals
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Revocation, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts, Procedural Fairness, Use of Trade Marks
Intellectual Property Law Trade Mark Revocation Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Jurisdiction of Appellate Courts Procedural Fairness Use of Trade Marks

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consolidated Developments Limited

Claimant/respondent (ch 2017 000294), Respondent/claimant (ch 2018 000062)

Andrew Alexander Cooper

Defendant/appellant (ch 2017 000294), Appellant/defendant (ch 2018 000062)

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Revocation and Appeal / Appeal From the UKIPO Hearing Officer's Decision, With Cross Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence on appeal in trade mark revocation proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the additional evidence should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in not revoking the 641 Mark for non-use in relation to 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 principles, the overriding objective, and additional factors relevant to trade mark cases. In this case, the additional evidence could and should have been filed earlier, was not shown to have probable important influence on the outcome, and its admission would prejudice the respondent and undermine finality. Therefore, the additional evidence was not admitted. The Hearing Officer did not err in his analysis of the evidence regarding the 641 Mark, and his findings were reasonable and adequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No fresh evidence admitted on appeal
  • Hearing Officer's decision stands: the three marks revoked in their entirety except for the 641 Mark, which remains registered for 'Class 35: providing advertising space on websites, for others'