The applicant applied for the mark shown below in relation to:
Class 9: Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus
Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear.
The Opponent was the registered owner of three marks all comprising the word CLUEDO in the following classes:
Hearing Officer Kirov considered that:
“here the Opposed Mark is on the face of it phonetically identical to the CLUEDO mark and I do not think that the stylization of the Opposed Mark or the different initial letters of the parties’ marks are sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of confusion amongst potential consumers. In this regard I note the words of Lord Radcliffe in De Cordova v Vick Chemical Co (1951) 68 RPC 103 at 106.
…that in most persons the eye is not an accurate recorder of visual detail, and that marks are remembered rather by general impressions or by some significant detail than by any photographic recollection of the whole.”
The decision can be found here.