Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> INVESCO THE GLOBAL INVESTMENT MANAGER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o40699 (18 November 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o40699.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o40699
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
INVESCO THE GLOBAL INVESTMENT MANAGER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o40699 (18 November 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o40699
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/406/99
- Decision date
- 18 November 1999
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- INVESCO THE GLOBAL INVESTMENT MANAGER
- Classes
- 36
- Applicants
- Amvescap Plc
- Opponents
- Investcorp S.A.
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b), 5(3) and 3(6)
Result
Section 5(3) - Not pursued
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3)(b) - Opposition succeeded as same services at issue and marks confusingly similar
Points Of Interest
- 1. Prior registration of different marks offer only limited assistance to an applicant. Use of a particular mark must be fully substantiated.
- 2. The applicants appealed the decision reached by the Hearing Officer under Section 5(2)(b) to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 14 April 2000 (SRIS O/246/00) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision.
Summary
Opposition based on the opponents registered mark INVESTCORP. The applicants own registrations of the marks INVESCO and O device, and INVESCO, Your Global Investment Partner & O device set in a black background. They also had substantial use of the mark INVESCO. The Hearing Officer decided that the comparison of the respective marks was essentially between INVESCO and INVESTCORP and he decided that the marks were similar both visually and phonetically. There was also conceptual similarity. Prior registrations and claimed use, which was not sufficiently substantiated, were not sufficient reasons for the Hearing Officer to revise his view of the marks at issue.