Likelihood of Confusion: Legislative Harmonisation?

2019 ◽  
pp. 253-279
Author(s):  
Rasmus Dalgaard Laustsen
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Of Confusion

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document