DIRAMODE S.A. v TURNHAM

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (10) ◽  
pp. 624-635
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Opposition proceedings – Word marks – PINKIES – Descriptiveness – Assessment of likelihood of confusion – Weight to be given to conceptual differences – Appeal to Appointed Person

Trade-Marks: Registration: Likelihood of Confusion

1937 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 170
Author(s):  
Herbert L. Nadeau
Keyword(s):  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

FITNESS LEISURE LTD’S TRADE MARK APPLICATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (10) ◽  
pp. 605-617
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Opposition proceedings – Procedure – Failure to consider all grounds advanced by the opponent – Earlier marks – Assessment of likelihood of confusion – Appeal to Appointed Person

Assessing Likelihood of Confusion

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilanah Fhima ◽  
Dev S. Gangjee
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
The Public ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
Essential Function ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

The likelihood of confusion test is inextricably linked to the principal justification for trade mark protection. If the essential function of a trade mark is to reliably indicate the commercial origin of a product in the marketplace, an action to prevent confusion amongst consumers, thereby impeding this origin indicating ability, is a necessary corollary. The language of Article 5(1)(b) (relative grounds) and Article 10(2)(b) (infringement) of the Trade Marks Directive 2015 (TMD 2015) indicates that the proprietor has the right to prevent a junior user from registering or using a mark where ‘because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public; the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark’.

GAP (ITM) INC v GAP 360 LTD

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (5) ◽  
pp. 352-372
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Related Services ◽  
High Court ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract Trade Marks – Opposition - GAP 360 – Travel related services - Likelihood of confusion – Descriptiveness - Scope of specification of services – Amendment - “all related to gap travel” - Requirement of clarity and precision – Whether a characteristic of the services in issue – Appeal to High Court

scholarly journals The interpretation practice of The European Court of Justice while judging the conflict between labelling applied as trademark with elderly right of another person

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-90
Author(s):  
Hana Kelblová
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

The article deals with the verification of the starting hypothesis of complementariness of the law of consumer protection and the law of intellectual property. In order to achieve that goal the author analyzes individual the Czech Trade Marks Act from the standpoint of protection of rights and interests of consumers.The article follows the categorical requirement of a public law rule, the Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits deceiving consumers and establishes that deceiving may also consist in offering products and services unjustified designated by misleading trade mark.The consumer is deceived most frequently when trade marks are used for designation of products and their promotion. The Trade Marks Act may be analyzed in relation to consumer protection first from the standpoint of consumer protection against trade marks misleading someone about the origin and quality of products and services designated by them. Then it is possible to examine the question whether requirements of a designation for being registered as a trade mark are at the same time those attributes of the trade mark which meet the declared intention of the lawmaker, i.e. that the trade mark should be a source of information for the consumer about the origin and quality of the product de­sig­na­ted by it.Especially, the article deals with an interpretation of the conception „Likelihood of Confusion“ as the fundamental conception while judging the conflict with elderly trademarks applying for the re­gi­stra­tion into the list of The Patent Office.A perception of an average consumer is a fundamental factor for a judgement of „Likelihood of Confusion“ as results from the decision practice of The Czech Patent Office, Czech courts and The European Court of Justice. This is proof of the conclusion that rules of the Trademark Law are rules of the Consumer protection Law.

38. Relative grounds for refusal

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion ◽  
The Uk

This chapter focuses on ‘relative grounds’ for denying an application to register a trade mark as set out in section 5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Article 8 of the European Union Trade Marks Regulation (EUTMR). It identifies ‘earlier trade marks’ and ‘earlier rights’ before turning to the tests which allow a prior mark to oppose the registration of a subsequent one. First, it reviews the so-called double identity ground, where an identical (later) mark is applied for, in the context of identical products. Second, it considers when likelihood of confusion may be established. Third, it surveys three situations referred to collectively as ‘dilution’, where the later mark may mentally evoke the earlier one in a way that is not confusing, yet still wrongful. It also explains the ‘advertising function’ of a trade mark, along with requirements relating to reputation and ‘due cause’. Finally, the chapter discusses relevant provisions governing unregistered trade marks, copyright, design right, and registered design right in the UK.

TINY REBEL BREWING CO LTD’S TRADE MARK APPLICATIONAppointed Person (Trade Marks)Prof. Ruth Annand: 16 August 2019BL O/482/19; [2019] R.P.C. 25

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 (10) ◽  
pp. 665-678
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Fruit Juices ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Likelihood Of Confusion

Abstract H1 Trade marks – Opposition proceedings – Device marks – TROPICANA – Comparison of goods – Whether beers similar to fruit juices – Comparison of marks – Dominant element – Descriptiveness – Acquired distinctive character – Conceptual differences – Assessment of likelihood of confusion – Passing off – Appeal to Appointed Person

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document