BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Comet Technology Limited (Patent) [2003] UKIntelP o33703 (5 November 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o33703.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o33703 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o33703
Summary
When paying the renewal fee the proprietor omitted to pay the £24 extension fee which was also due. This was drawn to the attention of Mr McConn, the Director with overall responsibility for renewing the patent, who issued instructions for the £24 to be paid. That payment was not received by the Patent Office which sent him a further reminder two months later. On receipt of this reminder, Mr McConn assumed that the Office had received his payment and had sent the reminder in error or in case he had not received the earlier reminder. He therefore took no further action and the patent ceased. The Hearing Officer said that, if Mr McConn thought the fee had been paid, it was unreasonable for his to assume that the reason the Office sent a reminder two months later was to ensure he had received the earlier reminder. The Hearing Officer also felt that Mr McConn assumption was unreasonable bearing in mind he had not personally sent the payment and had not received a receipt. The payment problems Mr McConn’s company was also experiencing was a further indication that it was unsafe to assume that the fee had reached the Patent Office and that the reminder had been sent in error. The Hearing Officer concluded that Mr McConn’s decision to ignore the reminder letter fell short of taking reasonable care to see that the fee was paid.
