header-logo header-logo

Intellectual property

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll