Intel wins against Comintel

Intel wins against Comintel

The word Intel looks very attractive for a trade mark. It implies intelligence because the reader will easily guess the second part of the word, and it is read and pronounced easily. So sooner or later it was going to happen. A Russian company seemingly built a strong defence: it first assumed the name Comintel Ltd and later, registered the trade mark Comintel, No 259074 in Class 38 (TV broadcasting, cable TV, e-communication).

Intel Corporation appealed against the registration of Comintel. The Patent Office rejected the appeal, which was not surprising. During the examination of the application the Office undoubtedly examined the designations Intel and Comintel for similarity and did not find any. It would hardly be expected that the Patent Office would go back on its previous thinking. Intel appealed the decision of the Chamber of Patent Disputes (part of the Patent Office) in court. The court satisfied the claims of Intel. That decision was appealed by the Patent Office but the Appeal Court upheld the decision at the first instance. The Patent Office appealed in the Cassation Instance Court, but the case was dismissed again.

When examining the case the courts argued that the key element in the controversial trade mark was the word Comintel (the trade mark also contained a figurative element that looked like a crescent moon). The word Comintel can be divided into two parts: Com" and Intel. In so doing, the second part visually and phonetically implies association with Intel Corporation because the letters in both trade marks are written in Latin characters in standard font. The figurative part of Comintel also brings up some association with Intel, which has an oval figure in its design (Registration No 198865). Based on that, the consumer may think that Comintel and Intel are abbreviated names of companies which provide services in the field of communications and further draw a conclusion that there are links between them.

Hence Intel won the conflict. The existence of Comintel company, however, remained outside the conflict and it still exists as well as the domain name comintel.ru. It seems that Intel lost further interest in punishing the infringer.

biriulin.jpg

Vladimir Biriulin


Gorodissky & Partners

Russia 129010, Moscow

B. Spasskaya Str

25, stroenie 3

Tel: +7 495 937 6116 / 6109

Fax: +7 495 937 6104 / 6123

pat@gorodissky.ru

www.gorodissky.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Varuni Paranavitane says she is excited to bring ‘rounded expertise’ to the firm, which will have a solicitor in its ranks for the first time
Lawyers adapting to AI-driven recommendations are being pushed to demonstrate expertise publicly rather than simply relying on a polished website
Mid-market businesses looking to establish an online presence need ‘holistic’ brand protection services at an accessible cost, according to partners
Our latest update also includes the latest case filing statistics, and an update on how a transatlantic merger could be a UPC opportunity for the US half of the partnership
New partners, from biotech company Leyden Labs and Novartis, take the total number of partner hires to 12 since the firm took on external investment in late 2024
Labelled the ‘largest law firm merger in history’, the new outfit could also spell an opportunity for US clients to capitalise on Hogan Lovells' UPC expertise
Andy Lee and Amy Brooks of Brandsmiths explain how the firm secured a win for Peppa Pig over rival children’s character Wolfoo, in a case that centred on copied audio clips
Pedro Moreira outlines proposals by INPI that look set to open a discussion regarding biological materials, extracts, sequences, genetically edited plants, and computer programs
The combined firm, which has a newly appointed IP partner in London, brings together more than 3,500 practitioners across 52 offices, with flagship hubs in Seattle, London, Sydney and New York
A host of SEP-rich law firms, both leading arguments and as intervenors, are set to feature in the UK Supreme Court’s third FRAND episode, though one ground of appeal has been settled
Gift this article