 |
[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 >> INTEL -PLAY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o24402 (17 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o24402.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o24402 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o24402
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of INTEL marks registered in Class 9 for computers, microprocessors and electronic apparatus for associated use. They also filed evidence to show their reputation in this field, which was significant, and also sought to show links with the toys and games industry.
The applicant claimed that the mark at issue had been chosen because INTEL is short for intelligent to convey the idea of ‘intelligent play’ in relation to the goods applied for. This was disputed by the opponents and rejected by the Hearing Officer as INTEL is not an abbreviation for 'intelligent' nor is it a known shortening of that word.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer determined that similar goods were at issue and that the respective marks INTEL and INTEL PLAY were very similar. The opponents were therefore successful on this ground unless the applicant restricted his specification to "Interlocking blocks being constructional toy puzzles".
Insofar as the ground under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) were concerned the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had a significant reputation in their core activity but there was little evidence presented to convince him that at the relevant date, the opponents reputation or goodwill extended into the non-electronic toys and games field. He thus found that the opponents failed on these grounds provided the application restricted his specification as suggested under Section 5(2)(b).