The High Court has ruled that Savanagh Securities Limited may serve notice requiring former GAA trustee Seosamh Ó Baoill to attend for cross-examination on an affidavit in proceedings over the registration of the “GAA” trade mark.
Mr Justice Allen held that Savanagh was a party opposing an application to rectify the trade mark register, brought by Tomás Ó Riain and Mr Ó Baoill. The judge found that the applicants had not shown that cross-examination should be refused or that it would amount to an abuse of process.
The ruling does not decide who owns the mark or whether the register should be changed. Those substantive questions remain for the separate rectification proceedings and a related appeal.
The dispute arose after the “GAA” word mark was registered in 2007 in the name of Cumann Lúthchleas Gael. Savanagh later challenged that registration, arguing that the unincorporated association could not hold property. In 2018, the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks rejected Savanagh’s invalidity application but said the register’s ownership entry should be corrected through a formal application naming the association’s trustees.
Savanagh appealed that decision. In 2019, Mr Ó Riain, the association’s director general, and Mr Ó Baoill, who had been a trustee when the mark was registered, brought a separate special summons seeking to have the register record ownership in Mr Ó Baoill’s name. Savanagh was served as a notice party and filed affidavits opposing the application.
Savanagh sought to question Mr Ó Baoill about his role as trustee and his connection to the mark’s registration. The applicants argued that Savanagh was not an “opposite party” entitled to cross-examine and that the proposed questioning was irrelevant and unnecessary.
Justice Allen rejected the argument about Savanagh’s status. He noted that Savanagh had filed evidence opposing the rectification application and that the applicants themselves had joined it. The judge also said the applicants intended to ask for the rectification application to be heard before the appeal, potentially making the appeal moot if rectification succeeded.
The judge said Savanagh was presumptively entitled to cross-examine a deponent in proceedings begun by special summons. He considered some of Savanagh’s proposed questions unlikely to justify cross-examination if permission were required, but held that permission was not required here. The court was not satisfied the applicants had established that the questioning would be abusive or unnecessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings.
The motion’s form was incorrect, the judge said. Subject to hearing counsel, he proposed declarations that Savanagh was entitled to serve notice for Mr Ó Baoill’s production for cross-examination and that the applicants had not established grounds to prevent it. He provisionally considered Savanagh successful on the motion and entitled to costs, with execution potentially stayed until the substantive proceedings were determined. The motion was listed for a further mention to settle the order and, if necessary, costs.