Hearst Communications Inc v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) T-344/09 [2012] All ER (D) 22 (Jul)
It was well-established that a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implied some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, the similarity of the trademarks and the similarity of the goods or services concerned. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between the goods or services might be offset by a high degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa. Further, as is apparent from recital 8 in the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009, the assessment of the likelihood of confusion depended on numerous elements and, in particular, on the public’s recognition of the trademark on the market in question. The more distinctive the trademark, the greater would be the likelihood of confusion, and therefore marks with a high distinctive character, either per se or because of their recognition by the public, enjoyed broader protection than marks with less distinctive character. The existence of an unusually high level of distinctiveness
