header-logo header-logo

29 November 2013
Issue: 7586 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Intellectual property

Preparados Alimenticos, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) T-377/10, [2013] All ER (D) 218 (Nov)

The proceedings concerned registration as a mark for the word sign “Jambo Afrika”. The General Court of the European Union held that the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion should, as regards the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, be based on the overall impression which they created, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of the marks in the mind of the average consumer of the goods or services in question played a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood. In that respect, the average consumer normally perceived a mark as a whole and did not proceed to analyse its various details. Further, where a sign consisted of both figurative and word elements, it did not automatically follow that it was the word element which should always be considered to be dominant. Furthermore, assessment of the similarity between two marks meant more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison should be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which did not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark might not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. It was only if all the other components of the mark were negligible that the assessment of the similarity could be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element. That could be the case, in particular, where that component was capable on its own of dominating the image of that mark which members of the relevant public kept in their minds, such that all the other components were negligible in the overall impression created by that mark.

 

Issue: 7586 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll