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 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o24600 (14 April 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o24600.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o24600
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
INVESCO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o24600 (14 April 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o24600
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/246/00
- Decision date
- 14 April 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
- Mark
- INVESCO
- Classes
- 36
- Applicants
- Amvescap PLC
- Opponents
- Investcorp SA
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Appeal failed. Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 18 November 1999 (SRIS O/406/99).
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of the registered mark INVESTCORP. The applicants owned registration of the marks INVESCO and O device and INVESCO, Your Global Investment Partner and O device set in a black background. The applicants also claimed use of the mark INVESCO prior to the relevant date but the Appointed Person decided that their evidence was insufficiently precise to conclude that they had a reputation in the UK at the relevant date nor was there any evidence from the applicants to show that the respective marks INVESCO and INVESTCORP had been used concurrently in the UK without actual or apparent instances of confusion having occurred.
As identical services were at issue here the Appointed Person compared the respective marks INVESTCORP and INVESCO The Global Investment Manager. Like the Hearing Officer he considered that the distinctive element of the applicants mark was the word INVESCO and it was this element which he compared to the opponents mark INVESTCORP. The Appointed Person considered the respective marks to be visually and aurally similar and taking imperfect recollection into account he concluded, like the Hearing Officer, that the respective marks were confusingly similar.