Honda Motor Europe Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2008] All ER (D) 35 (Sep)
Under Art 8 of reg 40/94 (opposition to the registration of a trademark by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark), the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion. Account should be taken of the similarity between the trade marks and between the goods or services.
The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion should be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components.
A complex trade mark could be regarded as being similar to another trade mark which is identical or similar to one of the components of the complex mark, unless that component forms the dominant element within the overall impression created by the complex mark (as where that component was, by itself, likely to dominate the image of that mark which the relevant public kept in mind, with the result that all the other components of the mark were negligible within the overall impression created by it).
The more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater is the likelihood of confusion and therefore marks with a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the recognition they possess on the market, enjoy broader protection than marks with a less distinctive character.
