Geoffrey Floyd v Water Factory Systems, Inc

This matter concerned an application by Geoffrey Floyd for an extension of time to serve evidence in answer to an opposition lodged by Water Factory Systems, Inc. The opposition related to Mr. Floyd's trade mark application no 562758 for "THE WATER FACTORY and drop device" in class 11. The proceedings were being conducted under the repealed Trade Marks Act 1955, as per section 241 of the Trade Marks Act 1995.

The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was required to determine whether a proper case had been made out justifying the extension of time, whether sufficient reasons had been provided, the relative inconvenience to the parties, and the public interest. The applicant sought a second extension of time, having previously been granted one, to serve his evidence in answer to the opposition. The opponent argued that the applications for extension lacked sufficient detail and demonstrated a lack of progress and disregard for the opposition procedures.

The delegate reasoned that while extensions of time are not automatic, the applicant's explanation for the delay, including personal business constraints and difficulties with record-keeping, coupled with the fact that the opponent also took the full period allowed for its evidence, provided sufficient justification. The delegate found that denying the extension would cause greater hardship to the applicant, who risked losing his opportunity to present his case, than granting it would cause the opponent. Furthermore, considering the public interest in allowing parties to present their arguments fully, especially given the opponent's own use of similar trade mark elements, the delegate decided to grant the extension.

The delegate granted Geoffrey Floyd's application for an extension of time to serve evidence in answer, setting the final date for service as 4 July 1996. Costs were awarded to the successful applicant.