Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/453/02

Decision date

15 October 2002

Hearing officer

Mr S Thorley QC

Mark

PARCEL POINT

Classes

39

Applicant

Copplestone Stores

Opponent

Paypoint Network Limited

Opposition

Section 3(1)(b)

Result

Section 3(1)(b): - Appeal dismissed

Points Of Interest

• 1. Useful review of the approach to be adopted by appeal tribunals.

Summary

This was an appeal from the decision of Mr Landau dated 11 March 2002 (BL O/106/02).

The Appointed Person had the benefit of argument whereas the Hearing Officer did not, but he observed that this did not affect matters since all the arguments had been addressed in the papers considered by the Hearing Officer.

As regards the approach of his tribunal to an appeal to the Appointed Person, the Appointed Person reviewed in some detail the guidance to be obtained from earlier decided cases including South Cone Incorporated v Jack Bessant and Others (the REEF case) and concluded “this tribunal should show a real reluctance but not the very highest degree of reluctance to interfere in the absence of a distinct and material error of principle”.

The Appointed Person reviewed the Hearing Officer’s decision and concluded that he had identified the correct legal test and considered all the arguments. He had come to the conclusion that PARCELPOINT had some reference to the services at issue; he did not think it was an obvious way of describing the service of the storage of parcels and thus the mark was not barred from registration. The opponent claimed this decision was wrong but the applicant argued otherwise. The Appointed Person accepted that this was a borderline case, making reference to the Registry’s initial refusal of the application, but decided that it would be wrong to interfere with decision of the Hearing Officer. Appeal dismissed.