关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

特立尼达和多巴哥

TT021-j

返回

Cv. A. No. 14 of 1999

An application for registration of a trademark was filed with the Trinidad and Tobago Intellectual Property Office (“TTIPO”) by Trinidad Import and Export Company Limited (“TIECL”). The Respondent filed a notice in opposition to the said application, following which a counter statement was filed by TIECL, a copy of which was received by the Respondent on November 2, 1995. The Deputy Controller of TTIPO issued a letter to the Respondent, requiring the filing of its evidence in opposition by November 30, 1995.

On November 29, 1995, Attorneys-at-Law for the Respondent wrote to the Deputy Controller of TTIPO requesting an extension to the end of February, 1996, for the filing of said evidence. The Deputy Controller, in her reply, invited the Respondent to seek the consent of TIECL regarding the requested extension and advised that if TIECL had not agreed to same by January 31, 1996, a hearing would be fixed for the Respondent’s application. No consent was granted by TIECL, and the Respondent notified the Deputy Controller accordingly, in response to which the Deputy Controller informed the Respondent’s Attorneys-at-Law that their application for an extension of time would be heard on February 16, 1996, at 10:00 a.m. This hearing was not attended by the Attorney-at-Law for the Respondent but was attended by a director of TIECL. After waiting half an hour, the Deputy Controller commenced the hearing in the absence of the Attorney-at-Law for the Respondent and heard the reasons expressed on behalf of TIECL for opposing the grant of the extension. The Deputy Controller then decided to refuse the Respondent’s application for an extension.

Later that day, the Respondent’s Attorney-at-Law learnt of what transpired at the hearing, and he subsequently communicated with the Deputy Controller regarding the proceedings. By letter dated March 5, 1996, the Respondent’s Attorney-at-Law resubmitted his request for an extension of time. The Deputy Controller sought the guidance of the Solicitor General on the matter, who advised that there was no power in legislation, given to the Deputy Controller, to reopen the application for the extension of time. Accordingly, the Deputy Controller declined to reopen the same.

The Respondent initiated judicial review proceedings in the High Court, which quashed the decision of the Deputy Controller not to re-open the Respondent’s application. The Deputy Controller then appealed the decision of the High Court.

The Court of Appeal found that the issue to be determined was whether or not the Deputy Controller had the power to reopen the question of granting an extension, having made her decision to refuse it in the absence of the Attorney-at-Law for the Respondent. In addition to the Trade Marks Act, Chapter 82:81 and the Trade Marks Rules (GN 91/1956) made under the Act, the court examined R v Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal, ex parte Mac Farlane and the earlier case of R v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Rossi, both of which suggested that there is a principle of general application to tribunals and decision-makers, apart from any power that might be given in legislation, to reconsider an order which was made in the absence of a party who would have had a right to be heard, regardless of whether or not that party was given the opportunity to attend. It was the court’s view that it was not necessary to await the making of legislation by Parliament to avoid injustice and as such, the court was in agreement with the principle laid down in Rossi. The court also considered that when a matter proceeds in the absence of a party, it is most probable that the tribunal or decision maker is not in full possession of the facts accounting for the absence of that party.

The court therefore held that the Deputy Controller had the power to reopen the matter and to give the Respondent an opportunity to be heard, although such power should not be exercised in situations which would involve the decision-maker resolving the same issue a second time. Accordingly, the appeal of the Deputy Controller was dismissed with an order to quash her refusal of the extension of time and re-hear the application for the extension, as well as to pay costs to the Respondent.

Cases referred to: R v Kensington and Chelsea Rent Tribunal, ex parte Mac Farlane; and R v London County Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, ex parte Rossi.