BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> PARCEL POINT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o10602 (11 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o10602.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o10602 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o10602
Result
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
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.
