Amper S a v Ampex Corporation

This decision concerns an application by AMPEX CORPORATION (the opponent) for an extension of time to serve evidence in support of its opposition to two trade mark applications, numbers 487570 and 487572, lodged by AMPER, S.A. (the applicant). The applications were for registration of trade marks relating to telecommunications apparatus and equipment.

The primary legal issue before the delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was whether to grant AMPEX CORPORATION a further extension of time to serve its evidence. This required the delegate to consider the grounds for the requested extension, the length of time already granted, and the relevant legal principles governing such applications, including the criteria established in *Vangedal-Nielsen and Another v. Smith* and *Lyons (trading as Mitty's Authorized Newsagency) v. Registrar of Trade Marks*.

The delegate reasoned that AMPEX CORPORATION had already been granted numerous extensions of time, totalling approximately 30 months, primarily on the basis of ongoing worldwide settlement negotiations between the parties. While acknowledging the complexity of achieving a global settlement and the public interest in resolving disputes, the delegate found that the progress in finalising the settlement had been exceedingly slow. Despite repeated assurances and correspondence, AMPEX CORPORATION had failed to provide a definite timetable for resolution or sufficient evidence of its efforts to expedite the process. The delegate applied the principle that the Registrar must give greater weight to the general public interest of effective and timely administration of the Act, and concluded that AMPEX CORPORATION had not presented a reasonable case justifying a further extension.

Consequently, the delegate refused to grant the sought-after extension of time. The decision noted that AMPER, S.A. had not opposed any of the previous extension requests, but that the prolonged delays were causing inconvenience and that the opponent had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in pursuing a timely resolution in Australia.