Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/263/02

Decision date

4 July 2002

Hearing Officer

Mr S P Rowan

Mark

EASYBED

Classes

31

Applicants

Barr Recycling

Opponents

G.I. Hadfield & Son Limited

Opposition

Sections 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c) & 3(1)(d)

Result

Section 3(1)(b): - Opposition failed

Section 3(1)(c): - Opposition failed

Section 3(1)(d): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

• 1. The word EASYBED, is a lexical invention.

Summary

The opponents alleged that EASYBED described the nature of the goods, their kind, intended purpose and characteristics and had become customary in the trade in relation to animal and pet bedding.

The Hearing Officer dealt with the matter first under Section 3(1)(d), and found, on the basis of the evidence before him, that the opponents had failed to demonstrate that the word had become customary in the trade. Under Section 3(1)(c) the Hearing Officer decided that the word EASYBED was a lexical invention, which would not be understood in a purely descriptive sense by the relevant class of persons. He also decided that, in this case, it had not been demonstrated that the mark was devoid of distinctive character; the opposition under Section 3(1)(b) therefore failed too.

Full decision O/263/02 30Kb