On 30 June 2009, the Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks found that the LOVOL device was not deceptively similar to VOLVO. The case is available here.
The main ground relied on by Volvo was that the LOVOL device was substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, VOLVO. Clearly the marks are not substantially identical.
Volvo's counsel argued along the lines of visual similarity and imperfect recollection. They also argued that LOVOL could be considered a play on VOLVO.
On the other hand, counsel for Hebei argued:
(a) LOVOL is a palindrome.
(b) The visual symmetry is striking.
(c) The obvious difference between the devices.
(d) VOLVO is Latin for "I roll" or "I turn", while LOVOL is an invented word.
(e) No common idea shared by the marks.
(f) No pattern of Volvo "varying or playing" with the VOLVO mark to suggest a series of derivative marks.
It followed that the Delegate did not consider that there was a "real and substantial risk that the use of the LOVOL marks would be that a reasonable person, or a number of persons in the relevant class of likely purchasers would be caused to wonder whether it might not be the case that the two products came from the same source.
Note
It's important to bear in mind that even if the words were a play on VOLVO, it was clear that the public would probably not think that it was Volvo that was playing with the letters. The purpose of the Act is to protect the public.