Africa: Intel and Intelvision are not confusingly similar
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article