Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
21 December 1999
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
25, 35
The Consortium of Bicycle Retailers Ltd
Halfords Limited
Section 3(1)(b)(c) and (d)


Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed

Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition successful

Sections 3(1)(c) & (d) - Not pursued

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • Any request to change an applicants name or correct an error in filing needs to be properly documented.


The opponents opposition based on the fact that the applicants mark is totally non-distinctive since it could be used in slogans such as "CYCLING IS FUN". Also the style of presentation with full stops and quotation marks is commonly used to add emphasis and evidence was filed by the opponents to confirm this fact.

In his decision the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark as presented meets the requirements of Section 3(1)(a) but went on to find that the mark fell foul of Sections 3(1)(b) since the words appearing in the mark are not distinctive and the method of presentation is commonly used in advertising etc.

Two matters arose under Section 3(6). As regards intention to use the Hearing Officer considered that the opponents had filed insufficient evidence to support a finding that the applicants did not intend to use their mark. The second matter related to the fact that the application was filed in the name of a trading style rather than the name of the limited company but evidence not conclusive. However, the Hearing Officer concluded that it was likely that matters could be rectified satisfactorily on the filing of further documentation. Opposition on this ground therefore failed.

Full decision O/450/99 PDF document31Kb