Africa: Intel and Intelvision are not confusingly similar

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Africa: Intel and Intelvision are not confusingly similar

On September 18 2018, the Seychelles registrar general handed down an important trade mark decision. The case involved an application by a Seychelles company called Intelvision Limited to register the trade mark Intelvision (stylised) in Class 38, and an opposition to that application by the US company Intel Corporation.

Intel Corporation alleged a likelihood of confusion with earlier Seychelles trade mark registrations for Intel in Classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42, a likelihood of confusion with a well-known international mark, and dilution. It submitted considerable evidence: evidence that it is the largest manufacturer of semi-conductors in the world, and the manufacturer of the processor that appears in most PCs, evidence that it is listed in international surveys of top brands and evidence of trade mark registrations in some 180 countries.

The registrar general made some early pronouncements: Intelvision operates in a small and specialist market, being one of only three licensed internet service providers in the Seychelles; computer processors and internet services are not that closely related and the two companies cannot be regarded as competitors; and there was no evidence of actual confusion between the two trade marks, notwithstanding coexistence in the Seychelles since 2004.

On the issue of confusing similarity the registrar general quoted this passage from the Canadian case of Ultravite Laboratories Ltd v Whitehalls Laboratories Ltd: "Trade marks may be different from one another and, therefore, not confusing with another when looked at in their totality, even if there are similarities in some of the elements when viewed separately. It is the combination of the elements that constitutes the trade mark and it is the effect of the trade mark as a whole, rather than any particular part in it, that must be considered."

Applying this, the registrar general went on to dismiss the opposition, saying that "although there may appear to be some resemblance, the trademarks in issue, when taken as a whole, are by virtue of their non-common features, dissimilar in sound and appearance, ultimately distinguishable to the average consumer."

This judgment is likely to attract some criticism.

Wayne Meiring


Spoor & Fisher JerseyAfrica House, Castle StreetSt Helier, Jersey JE4 9TWChannel IslandsTel: +44 1534 838000

Fax: +44 1534 838001info@spoor.co.uk

www.spoor.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

VO, which has offices in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, is the second European IP firm to secure external backing this week
The Bardehle Pagenberg attorneys-at-law discuss the firm’s Managing IP EMEA Awards 2026 success, Unified Patent Court litigation strategy, and evolving European patent trends
A patent battle between two legal tech companies and a loss for Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI were also among the top talking points
With drug prices a hot topic in the US, courts are seemingly more reluctant to prevent the entry of generics to the market
Academic Eden Sarid joins us during Pride Month to discuss queer expression and IP law, Patagonia v Pattie Gonia, and how queer and AI-generated creations both pose novelty concerns
Patent attorney Michael Henson joins the firm to lead its freshly launched blockchain and digital assets practice
A dispute over mammogram technology, and a development in the case between GSK and Moderna were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
With rankings for Western Europe set to be published on June 25, we sat down with our research lead to find out what practitioners and law firms can expect
Peter O’Sullivan, a professional services executive, says he is looking forward to helping Pearce IP become the leading life sciences firm in Australia and New Zealand
Matteo Di Lernia, advocate at LCA Studio Legale, unpicks the CJEU’s ruling in M.M. Ristorazione v Villa Ramazzini, including its impact on litigation strategies
Gift this article