Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
15 May 1998
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
17, 19
George M Callenders Limited
D Anderson & Son Limited
Sections 3(1)(b), (c) & (d), 5(2)(b)


Section 3(1)(b), (c) & (d) - Opposition successful.

Section 5(2)(b) - Not decided.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. The Hearing Officer noted that the applicants had applied for goods for which ODP might not be descriptive. However, as no request had been made to restrict the specifications applied for, the Hearing Officer refused the application in its entirety.
  • 2. When collecting their survey evidence, the opponents had not mentioned their own application for registration of, what appeared to be, a descriptive mark.


At the time of filing their opposition, the opponents had an application pending for the mark ZERO ODP in Class 17 for the same goods as those of the applicants, this mark later matured to registration.

The opponents filed evidence by way of the results of a survey to show that in the building industry ODP means "Ozone depletion potential" and "O" means zero in relation to insulating material. From the supporting material the Hearing Officer concluded that products having an ODP required a zero rating in order to comply with national building standards. He also noted the following examples:

Zero Ozone Depletion Potential


Ozone Depletion Potential O

Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) of Zero

The term ODP is a relative measure

The Hearing Officer believed that the mark as filed would be seen by persons in the trade as a further descriptive way of indicating a product with an ODP of zero. Thus opposition under Section 3(1)(b), (c) and (d) succeeded.

In view of his decision under Section 3 the Hearing Officer declined to consider the ground under Section 5(2)(b).

Full decision O/110/98 PDF document19Kb