For the whole decision click here: o18001
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opposition based on opponent's earlier (Community) registration of the mark INVOX for Class 9 et al. Having noted that the respective specifications covered identical goods (computer software), the Hearing Officer proceeded to compare the respective marks. Applying the usual case law, and even taking the word INVU as the dominant part of the mark in suit, he was not persuaded, given the visual and aural differences between the marks, that there was a realistic likelihood of confusion. The impact of the device elements of the mark in suit confirmed him in that view, as did the absence of a conceptual meaning for either mark, and the sophisticated nature of the goods in question. The opposition therefore failed.