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

Cookies Settings

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

Six hires across the IP spectrum reflect Orrick’s efforts to better serve tech clients across the IP lifecycle
David Stone, partner at White & Case, argues that the government’s planned reforms will modernise and futureproof UK design law, but leave two of the thorniest problems unresolved
Max Scott will join the firm’s IP transactions group in California, becoming the latest Weil IP partner to secure their future
Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Gift this article