Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 January 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
41, 42
Pembertons Group Plc
Robin Levy
Sections 3(1)(b),(c) &(d)


Section 3(1)(b): - Not considered.

Sections 3(1)(c) & (d) - Opposition successful in respect of Class 42.

- Failed in respect of Class 41.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Date of evidence : the opponents evidence was dated some eighteen months after the filing date but the Hearing Officer accepted it as relevant in this case because of the descriptive nature of the mark.
  • 2. The opponent appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 16 February 2004 (BL O/044/04) the Appointed Person found the opposition under Section 3(1)(c) to be successful in respect of both Classes 41 and 42.


The opponents opposition was based on the fact that the word MEZZANINE is an ordinary dictionary word used to signify a particular level within a building - usually a floor between floors. Thus it is a descriptive word which would be used to identify the location of particular services such as restaurants, entertainment services etc. The opponents filed evidence to show that other parties use the word MEZZANINE as the name of their restaurant; also many other examples of descriptive use regarding the location of restaurants within buildings. The Hearing Officer considered the nature of the usage and also the surrounding information and concluded that the word MEZZANINE has certain attractions since such areas usually overlook eg other areas within stores; have outside views etc. He thus decided that the mark was open to objections under Section 3(1)(c) in respect of certain services. Based on the same evidence and usage shown and the examples, the Hearing Officer decided that the mark was also open to objection under Section 3(1)(d)

As noted above the applicant had filed in two classes. Class 42 in respect of restaurant services etc and Class 41 in respect of nightclub services etc. Having reviewed the matter carefully the Hearing Officer decided that the objections only applied to the mark in respect of the Class 42 services and, if amended, the application could proceed in respect of Class 41.

Full decision O/012/02 PDF document67Kb