Key Case Law Flashcards
The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors
Sabel BV v Puma AG
The average consumer of the goods or services in question, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably circumspect and observant but who rarely has the chance to make direct comparisons between marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect picture of them he has kept in his mind, and whose attention varies according to the category of goods or services in question
Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel BV
Gut Springenheide and Tusky
The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details
Sabel BV v Puma AG
The appreciation of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must therefore be based on the overall impression created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components
Sabel BV v Puma AG
There is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the use that has been made of it
Sabel BV v Puma AG
There is an interdependence between the various relevant factors, so that a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a great degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Inc
Mere association, in the strict sense that the later mark brings the earlier mark to mind, is not sufficient
Sabel BV v Puma AG
The reputation of a mark does not give grounds for presuming a likelihood of confusion simply because of a likelihood of association in the strict sense
Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG
The risk that the public might wrongly believe that the respective goods or service come from the same or economically linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer Inc
