Anheuser Busch Inc. v Controller of Patents

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Barron
Judgment Date01 January 1988
Neutral Citation1987 WJSC-HC 11
Docket Number43 of 1986,[1986 No. 43 J.R.]
CourtHigh Court
Date01 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Controller of Patents
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 October 1996
    ...review proceedings the first defendant was ordered to furnish in writing the reasons for its refusal of the plaintiff's application (see [1987] I.R. 329). These grounds were furnished on the 19 June, 1995. It was stated therein that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the requisite standard......
  • Doyle v Kildare County Council
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1996
    ...v. Criminal Injuries Compensation TribunalIR [1988] I.R. 51 and Anheuser Busch Inc. v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade MarksIR [1987] I.R. 329 followed. Dicta: The proposition that a property arbitrator is under no duty or obligation to set forth in his award the reasons for his de......
  • Orange Ltd v Director of Telecoms (No 2)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 18 May 2000
    ...1983 S111(10)(e)(ii) POSTAL & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ACT 1983 S111(2B)(b) ANHEUSER BUSCH V CONTROLLER OF PATENTS DESIGN & TRADEMARKS 1987 IR 329, 1988 ILRM 247 O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39 MACCORMACK V GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD 1997 2 IR 489 FLOOD V GARDA SIOCHANA CO......
  • D.M.P.T. v Moran
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 29 April 2015
    ...in which justice may require the furnishing of reasons, citing Anheuser Busch Inc. v. Comptroller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [1987] I.R. 329. McCracken J. then continued: 'However, in that case the reasons were required to enable the Applicant to consider whether to appeal the deci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT