Matthew John Meath and John Norman Meath v Anestis Kyprianou

Anestis Kyprianou sought an extension of time to file a notice of opposition to trade mark application no. 681723, filed by Matthew John Meath and John Norman Meath. The application for extension was made under regulation 5.2 of the Trade Marks Regulations 1995, citing grounds including error or omission, circumstances beyond control, and the conduct of genuine negotiations. The Meaths, as applicants for the trade mark, were also represented at the hearing.

The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks was required to determine whether Mr Kyprianou had established sufficient grounds for an extension of time. Specifically, the delegate had to consider whether the failure to file the opposition within the prescribed period was due to an error or omission by Mr Kyprianou or his agent, or circumstances beyond his control, as contemplated by regulation 5.2(2) and (3). The delegate also had to assess the significance of ongoing negotiations between the parties and the overall merits of a potential opposition.

The delegate's reasoning focused on the evidence presented, particularly concerning the dispatch and non-receipt of a letter from Mr Kyprianou to his UK attorney, Mr Mark Hickey, on 27 February 1997, instructing him to oppose the Meaths' trade mark application. While Mr Kyprianou contended that the letter's non-delivery constituted circumstances beyond his control, the delegate noted that Mr Kyprianou had not ensured the letter was sent via a more reliable method, such as fax, given the imminent deadline, nor had he followed up to confirm its receipt. The delegate also considered the conflicting accounts regarding a telephone conversation on the same day. Drawing on case law, the delegate found that the failure to take reasonable precautions to ensure timely delivery of instructions, despite the availability of more secure methods, did not meet the threshold for "circumstances beyond the control" as a force majeure event.

Ultimately, the delegate concluded that Mr Kyprianou had not satisfied the requirements for an extension of time under regulation 5.2. The delegate found that the failure to file the opposition was not due to circumstances beyond Mr Kyprianou's control, nor was it an error or omission that would warrant an extension. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to file the notice of opposition was refused.