Plaintiff: Intel Corporation
Defendant: Gary Milton Munroe
Case no.: O/150/08
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Industry: Technology
Decision date: 28 May, 2008
Subject matter: Phonetic similarityLikelihood of confusion
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).
INTEL
ACTIVINTEL
What if my specimen doesn't precisely match the mark in my trademark application?
How much does it cost to register a trademark by myself vs by an attorney or an online service?
What is the price for 2 or more trademark classes in Australia?
Am I able to use the trademark symbol on our products even if the trademark is still pending?
