For the whole decision click here: o15008
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful. Section 5(3): Not considered. Section 5(4)(a): Not considered.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent owns a number of registrations for the mark INTEL in word and logo form in respect of a range of goods in class 9 and services in class 42. The Hearing Officer found that identical and similar goods and services were at issue in these proceedings.
The opponent also filed evidence of use of its mark. Additionally the applicant accepted the reputation of the opponent’s mark and the Hearing Officer noted as a finding of fact that the opponent has an enormous reputation in its mark. The opponent also filed survey evidence but the Hearing Officer found it to be of little assistance in reaching his decision.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks on the basis that identical and similar goods and services were at issue. As regards the word element in the applicant’s mark the Hearing Officer thought it likely that visually and orally there would be a split between the ACTIV and INTEL elements. The recognition of the INTEL element in the marks would clearly indicate a connection with the opponent, because of the reputation the opponent has in its mark. As there is no connection or association deception would occur. The Hearing Officer went on to find the opponent successful in its opposition under Section 5(2)(b).
In view of his decision in respect of the ground under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer saw no need to consider the grounds under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a).