Case Notes, Deceptively similar?

It’s Colonel Mustard in the conservatory with the candlestick: Qludo is deceptively similar to Cluedo

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:

Regn No.
Priority Date
Class 28: Games and playthings including board games
Class 9: All goods in this class including video cassette games, video games & computer programmes for playing games
Class 16: Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paint brushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks; including note pads
Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear

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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s