Anheuser Busch Inc. v Controller of Patents

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barron
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1987 WJSC-HC 11
• Docket Number: 43 of 1986,[1986 No. 43 J.R.]
• Date: 01 January 1988

1987 WJSC-HC 11

THE HIGH COURT

43 of 1986

ANHEUSER BUSCH INC v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS

JUDICIAL REVIEW

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT 1963 AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO RECTIFY THE

REGISTER ON THE APPLICATION OF ANHEUSER BUSCH

BETWEEN/

ANHEUSER BUSCH Inc.

AND

THE CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS

Citations:

TRADE MARKS ACT 1963 S57

RSC O.94 r45

RSC O.94 r46

TRADE MARKS ACT 1963 S25

TRADE MARKS ACT 1963 S26

TRADE MARKS ACT 1963 S56

TRADE MARKS RULES 1963 SI 268/1963 r70

TRADE MARKS ACT 1963 S34

TRADE MARKS RULES 1963 SI 268/1963 r36–46

TRADE MARKS RULES 1963 SI 268/1963 r43

TRADE MARKS ACT 1963 S26(6)

Synopsis:

NATURAL JUSTICE

Fair procedures

Tribunal - Decision - Reasons - Statement - Necessity - Obligation of Controller of Trade Marks to state the reasons for a decision made by him - ~See~ Trade Mark, Controller - (1986/43 JR - Barron J. - 15/5/87) [1987] IR 329 [1988] ILRM 247

|Anheuser Busch v. Controller of Trade Marks|

TRIBUNAL

Decision

Reasons - Statement - Necessity - Fair procedures - Obligation of Controller of Trade Marks to state the reasons for a decision made by him - ~See~ Trade Mark, Controller - (1986/43 JR - Barron J. - 15/5/87) [1987] IR 329 [1988] ILRM 247

|Anheuser Busch v. Controller of Trade Marks|

TRADE MARK

Controller

Decision - Reasons - Statement - Necessity - Removal of mark from the register - The applicants applied to the Controller for the removal of the mark pursuant to s.34 of the Act of 1963 - By his decision the Controller dismissed the application - The applicants requested the Controller to state in writing the reasons for his decision, but the Controller refused to do so - The applicants wanted to know the reasons for the Controller's decision so that they could consider whether or not to appeal to the High Court, pursuant to s.57 of the Act, from the decision - An appeal under that section is made by special summons which must state, pursuant to order 94, r.46, of the Rules of 1986, whether the appeal is from the whole or part of the Controller's decision and the concise grounds of the appeal - Sections 25 and 26 of the Act require the Controller to state, if so requested, the grounds of the decisions he gives pursuant to those sections - Section 56 of the Act contains provisions which require notices of appeals from the decisions of the Controller to be given to him, and which give him ample opportunities to state the reasons for his decisions - Held that the Controller, being obliged to act judicially in discharging his functions pursuant to s.34, was also obliged to furnish, if so requested, the reasons for the decision he made pursuant to that section so as to implement the guarantee of fair procedures inherent in the provisions of Article 40, s.3, of the Constitution - Held that the Court would have power, after the applicants had lodged an appeal from the decision, pursuant to s.56 of the Act to direct the Controller to furnish a statement of his reasons for his decision - Held that, upon receipt of the applicants" request, the terms of rules 43 and 70 of the Rules of 1963 obliged the Controller to state in writing the reasons for his decision - Held that the applicants were entitled to an order of mandamus directing the Controller to deliver to them a statement disclosing the reasons for his dismissal of their application - Trade Mark Rules, 1963, rr.43, 70 - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986, order 94, r.46 - Trade Marks Act, 1963, ss.25, 26, 34, 56, 57 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 40 - (1986/43 JR - Barron J. - 15/5/87)

|Anheuser Busch v. Controller of Trade Marks|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barron delivered on the 15th day of May 1987.

2 The Applicant applied under the provisions of Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act 1963for the removal of a mark on the ground of non-use. This application was opposed by the registered proprietor on four separate and distinct grounds. The Applicant requested an oral hearing...