Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
11 March 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
Copplestone Stores
Paypoint Network Limited
Section 3(1)(b)


Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents opposition was based on the claim that the words PARCEL POINT are descriptive of a collection/storage point for parcels and is a term which others may legitimately wish to use in relation to such services. The opponents also filed copies of correspondence between the applicant and the Registry in which the applicant stated that others could use the words PARCEL POINT as it was the combination for which registration was sought. The opponents claimed that the mere combination of two descriptive words did not create a distinctive mark.

The applicants pointed to the acceptance of other marks such as MAILPOINT and PAYPOINT (owned by the opponents) and said that if such marks were acceptable then so was its mark. The applicants claimed use of their mark but this use was within a restricted geographical area and not substantiated to any extent.

The Hearing Officer considered the evidence before him and noted that the mark PAYPOINT incorporated a significant device. Therefore, it was not on a par with the mark at issue here. In any event he stated that he had to consider this mark in relation to the services at issue and previous acceptances did not impact on the decision he had to make. While the Hearing Officer accepted that the mark applied had some reference to the services at issue he did not think it the most obvious way of describing the service of the storage of parcels. The mark was not, therefore, without distinctive character and was acceptable for registration.

Full decision O/106/02 PDF document45Kb