Application for the below trade mark opposed by Insight Clinical.
The opponent alleged that it was the owner of the applied for trade mark as it was substantially identical to its prior trade mark. The opponent’s evidence outlined it use of its trade mark prior to the adoption of the opposed mark.
So, the question turned to whether the trade marks above are substantially identical.
On this, the Hearing Officer first noted that the ‘radiology’ and ‘clinical imaging’ elements of the respective trade marks should be discounted for their generic/descriptive values. Next, the Hearing Officer observed that device elements were ‘differing versions of the same thing’, and finally that the services provided under both trade marks would be provided by reference to the identical element ‘insight’.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the both trade marks are substantially identical and the application was, therefore, refused.
To view the Office decision, click here.