pollini r 816/2001 2
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
1/173
NON CONFUSION
INFRINGEMENT
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
2/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
3/173
NON CONFUSION
INFRINGEMENT
Professor Charles Gielen
AIPPI Milan July 2008
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
4/173
Why non-confusion?
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
5/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
6/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
7/173
Why non-confusion?
Why not dilution?
Dilution is only one form of non-confusion infringement
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
8/173
Why non-confusion?
Why not dilution?
Dilution is only one form of non-confusion infringement
Another one is taking unfair
advantage of the repute of the mark
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
9/173
US Trademark Dilution
Revision Act 2006
the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive,
inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall beentitled to an injunction against another person who, atany time after the owner's mark has become famous,commences use of a mark or trade name in commercethat is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by
tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of thepresence or absence of actual or likely confusion, ofcompetition, or of actual economic injury.
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
10/173
Non-confusion in Europe
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
11/173
Non-confusion in EuropeRationale: see CFI Mineral Spa
2008
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
12/173
Non-confusion in EuropeRationale: see CFI Mineral Spa
2008
Art. 4(3) and 5(2) Directive
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
13/173
Non-confusion in EuropeRationale: see CFI Mineral Spa
2008
Art. 4(3) and 5(2) Directive
To be interpreted by ECJ (Davidoffand adidas)
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
14/173
Non-confusion in EuropeRationale: see CFI Mineral Spa
2008
Art. 4(3) and 5(2) Directive
To be interpreted by ECJ (Davidoffand adidas)
Implemented in almost alljurisdictions
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
15/173
Non-confusion in EuropeRationale: see CFI Mineral Spa
2008
Art. 4(3) and 5(2) Directive
To be interpreted by ECJ (Davidoffand adidas)
Implemented in almost alljurisdictions
Art. 8(5) and 9(1)(c) CTM
Regulation
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
16/173
The key issues
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
17/173
The key issuesOppose registration or use in the
course of trade of a sign
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
18/173
The key issuesOppose registration or use in the
course of trade of a sign
- identical or similar
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
19/173
The key issuesOppose registration or use in the
course of trade of a sign
- identical or similar
- to a reputed mark
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
20/173
The key issuesOppose registration or use in the
course of trade of a sign
- identical or similar
- to a reputed mark
- registered for dissimilar products,
if
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
21/173
The key issuesOppose registration or use in the
course of trade of a sign
- identical or similar
- to a reputed mark
- registered for dissimilar products,
if
- without due cause
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
22/173
The key issuesOppose registration or use in the
course of trade of a sign
- identical or similar
- to a reputed mark
- registered for dissimilar products,
if
- without due cause
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
23/173
The key issues
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
24/173
The key issues
- unfair advantage is taken of, or
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
25/173
The key issues
- unfair advantage is taken of, or
- detriment is caused to
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
26/173
The key issues
- unfair advantage is taken of, or
- detriment is caused to
- the distinctiveness or
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
27/173
The key issues
- unfair advantage is taken of, or
- detriment is caused to
- the distinctiveness or
- repute of the mark
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
28/173
The key issues
- unfair advantage is taken of, or
- detriment is caused to
- the distinctiveness or
- repute of the mark
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
29/173
The key issues
- unfair advantage is taken of, or
- detriment is caused to
- the distinctiveness or
- repute of the mark
No confusion required (adidas/
Fitness World)
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
30/173
Similarity?
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
31/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
32/173
Similarity?
ECJ in adidas/Fitnessworld(2003):It is sufficient for the degree of
similarity (in visual, aural orconceptual respect, G.) between themark with a reputation and the signto have the effect that the relevant
section of the public establishes a linkbetween the sign and the mark.
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
33/173
Similarity?
ECJ in adidas/Fitnessworld(2003):It is sufficient for the degree of
similarity (in visual, aural orconceptual respect, G.) between themark with a reputation and the signto have the effect that the relevant
section of the public establishes a linkbetween the sign and the mark.
So: if there is association, there issimilarity
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
34/173
Similarity link
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
35/173
Similarity link
High Court 2006 LOreal/Bellure
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
36/173
Similarity link
High Court 2006 LOreal/Bellure
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
37/173
Similarity link
High Court 2006 LOreal/Bellure
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
38/173
Similarity link
High Court 2006 LOreal/Bellure
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
39/173
Link?
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
40/173
Link?The UK reference (May 15, 2007) to ECJ
in re. Intel/Intelmark
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
41/173
Link?The UK reference (May 15, 2007) to ECJ
in re. Intel/IntelmarkWhatfactors need to be taken into
account to establish a link?
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
42/173
Link?The UK reference (May 15, 2007) to ECJ
in re. Intel/IntelmarkWhatfactors need to be taken into
account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
43/173
Link?The UK reference (May 15, 2007) to ECJ
in re. Intel/IntelmarkWhatfactors need to be taken into
account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:Bringing to mind = link
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
44/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
45/173
Link?The UK reference (May 15, 2007) to ECJ
in re. Intel/IntelmarkWhatfactors need to be taken into
account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:Bringing to mind = linkLink=association=connection
Link must be the result of similarity notof something else such as marketleadership
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
46/173
Link?The UK reference (May 15, 2007) to ECJ
in re. Intel/IntelmarkWhatfactors need to be taken into
account to establish a link?Other than Jacob, AG Sharpston onJune 26:Bringing to mind = linkLink=association=connection
Link must be the result of similarity notof something else such as marketleadership
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
47/173
No link
Hague District Court 6 December 2005PEPSI
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
48/173
Reputation
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
49/173
ReputationECJ (Chevy) 1999: known by a
significant part of the publicconcerned by the products covered
by the mark
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
50/173
ReputationECJ (Chevy) 1999: known by a
significant part of the publicconcerned by the products covered
by the markNot required that reputation exists
throughout the territory of the
Member State (or EuropeanUnion?): substantial part suffices(compare also ECJ (TARRAGONA)2007)
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
51/173
Reputation
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
52/173
Reputation
Pago/Tirolmilch Qs posed by AustrianSupreme Court
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
53/173
Reputation
Pago/Tirolmilch Qs posed by AustrianSupreme Court Is a mark reputed in the entire EU if it is
reputed in only one member state
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
54/173
Reputation
Pago/Tirolmilch Qs posed by AustrianSupreme Court Is a mark reputed in the entire EU if it is
reputed in only one member state If not, can on the basis of such a reputed an
injunction be granted for one member state
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
55/173
Reputation
Pago/Tirolmilch Qs posed by AustrianSupreme Court Is a mark reputed in the entire EU if it is
reputed in only one member state If not, can on the basis of such a reputed an
injunction be granted for one member state
Think of ECJ in Chevy:
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
56/173
Reputation
Pago/Tirolmilch Qs posed by AustrianSupreme Court Is a mark reputed in the entire EU if it is
reputed in only one member state If not, can on the basis of such a reputed an
injunction be granted for one member state
Think of ECJ in Chevy:
It is sufficient for a Benelux trade mark tohave a reputation in a substantial part ofthe Benelux territory, which part mayconsist of a part of one of the Beneluxcountries
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
57/173
Reputation
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
58/173
Reputation
Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is
caused
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
59/173
Reputation
Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is
causedHow to prove: see for example:
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
60/173
Reputation
Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is
causedHow to prove: see for example:BoA OHIM 2006 R 759/2005-1 Spa
Monopole
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
61/173
Reputation
Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is
causedHow to prove: see for example:BoA OHIM 2006 R 759/2005-1 Spa
Monopole
BoA OHIM 2005 R 1204/2004-1Absolut
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
62/173
Reputation
Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is
causedHow to prove: see for example:BoA OHIM 2006 R 759/2005-1 Spa
Monopole
BoA OHIM 2005 R 1204/2004-1AbsolutOHIM 2005 B631483 Karat/Egekaraton
survey evidence
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
63/173
Reputation
Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is
causedHow to prove: see for example:BoA OHIM 2006 R 759/2005-1 Spa
Monopole
BoA OHIM 2005 R 1204/2004-1AbsolutOHIM 2005 B631483 Karat/Egekaraton
survey evidence
Not sufficient:
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
64/173
Reputation
Chevy: The stronger the distinctivecharacter and reputation the easier itwill be to accept that detriment is
causedHow to prove: see for example:BoA OHIM 2006 R 759/2005-1 Spa
Monopole
BoA OHIM 2005 R 1204/2004-1AbsolutOHIM 2005 B631483 Karat/Egekaraton
survey evidence
Not sufficient:CFI 2004 T-8/03 Emidio Tucci
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
65/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
66/173
Similar or dissimilar products
ECJ 2003 Davidoff/Durffee:protection also in case of similar
products (teleologicalinterpretation contra legem!)
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
67/173
Similar or dissimilar products
ECJ 2003 Davidoff/Durffee:protection also in case of similar
products (teleologicalinterpretation contra legem!)
Examples:
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
68/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
69/173
Similar or dissimilar products
ECJ 2003 Davidoff/Durffee:protection also in case of similar
products (teleologicalinterpretation contra legem!)
Examples:
Dutch Supreme Court 1977Monopoly/Antimonopoly
District Court Zutphen 2004 Viagra/Sigra
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
70/173
Dilution and similar products
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
71/173
Dilution and similar products
SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
72/173
Dilution and similar products
SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY
both for financial services
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
73/173
Dilution and similar products
SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY
both for financial services
Court Den Bosch 2006
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
74/173
Dilution and similar products
SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY
both for financial services
Court Den Bosch 2006
RED BULL v. BULLFIGHTER
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
75/173
Dilution and similar products
SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY
both for financial services
Court Den Bosch 2006
RED BULL v. BULLFIGHTER
Both for energy drinks
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
76/173
Dilution and similar products
SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY
both for financial services
Court Den Bosch 2006
RED BULL v. BULLFIGHTER
Both for energy drinks
Court Brussels 2006
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
77/173
Dilution and similar products
SWIFT v. SWIFTPAY
both for financial services
Court Den Bosch 2006
RED BULL v. BULLFIGHTER
Both for energy drinks
Court Brussels 2006
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
78/173
Due cause
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
79/173
Due cause
Former Benelux law: only duecause if
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
80/173
Due cause
Former Benelux law: only duecause if
there is such a necessity to usea particular sign that it cannot bereasonably expected that theuser desists from using it:
almost never accepted, or if
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
81/173
Due cause
Former Benelux law: only duecause if
there is such a necessity to usea particular sign that it cannot bereasonably expected that theuser desists from using it:
almost never accepted, or ifthe user has prior rights (like
use as a trade name)
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
82/173
Due cause
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
83/173
Due cause
No decisions by ECJ yet, but due cause
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
84/173
Due cause
No decisions by ECJ yet, but due cause
accepted in District Court The Hague2006 adidas/Nike: use of stripes asdecoration = valid reason to use andin BoA 2004 R-816/2001-2 Pollini:prior use as trade name
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
85/173
Due cause
No decisions by ECJ yet, but due cause
accepted in District Court The Hague2006 adidas/Nike: use of stripes asdecoration = valid reason to use andin BoA 2004 R-816/2001-2 Pollini:prior use as trade name
denied in BoA 2006 R-428/2005-2Tissot: same principle as priorBenelux law: the fact that the markoriginates from someone with thename Tissot is not sufficient
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
86/173
Likelihood of harm?
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
87/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
88/173
Likelihood of harm?
In the context of opposition caselikelihood of harm is sufficient as longas such likelihood is not purely
theoretical (CFI in Citibank/Citi2008),but
In infringement cases the law says:unfair advantage is taken of ordetriment is caused: actual damage?
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
89/173
Likelihood of harm?
In the context of opposition caselikelihood of harm is sufficient as longas such likelihood is not purely
theoretical (CFI in Citibank/Citi2008),but
In infringement cases the law says:unfair advantage is taken of ordetriment is caused: actual damage?
No: see art. 16(3) TRIPs: probably
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
90/173
Likelihood of harm?
In the context of opposition caselikelihood of harm is sufficient as longas such likelihood is not purely
theoretical (CFI in Citibank/Citi2008),but
In infringement cases the law says:unfair advantage is taken of ordetriment is caused: actual damage?
No: see art. 16(3) TRIPs: probablyConfirmed by CoA The Hague 2002 and
Brussels 2003
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
91/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
92/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
AG Jacobs: The essence is that theblurring of the distinctiveness of themark means that it is no longer capableof arousing immediate association withthe goods for which it is registered andused.
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
93/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
AG Jacobs: The essence is that theblurring of the distinctiveness of themark means that it is no longer capableof arousing immediate association withthe goods for which it is registered andused.
CoA London Intel/Intelmark: 3rdquestion: AG Sharpston
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
94/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
AG Jacobs: The essence is that theblurring of the distinctiveness of themark means that it is no longer capableof arousing immediate association withthe goods for which it is registered andused.
CoA London Intel/Intelmark: 3rdquestion: AG Sharpston
Mark does not have to be unique
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
95/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
AG Jacobs: The essence is that theblurring of the distinctiveness of themark means that it is no longer capableof arousing immediate association withthe goods for which it is registered andused.
CoA London Intel/Intelmark: 3rdquestion: AG Sharpston
Mark does not have to be unique
No effect on economic behaviour necessary
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
96/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
97/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
Not accepted in SPA (mineral
water) v. SPA-FINDERS (travel
agency services); CFI 2005T-67/04
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
98/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
Not accepted in SPA (mineral
water) v. SPA-FINDERS (travel
agency services); CFI 2005T-67/04
Not accepted in VIPS (restaurant
services) v. VIPS (computerprograms for restaurants); CFI
2007 T-215/03
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
99/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
100/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
CFI 2008
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
101/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
CFI 2008
CAMEL for tobaccoproducts
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
102/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
CFI 2008
CAMEL for tobaccoproducts
vs.
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
103/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
CFI 2008
CAMEL for tobaccoproducts
vs.CAMELO for coffee
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
104/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
CFI 2008
CAMEL for tobaccoproducts
vs.CAMELO for coffee
- Camels and piramides: weak
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
105/173
Detriment to distinctiveness
CFI 2008
CAMEL for tobaccoproducts
vs.CAMELO for coffee
- Camels and piramides: weak
- No detriment
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
106/173
Detriment to repute
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
107/173
Detriment to repute
AG Jacobs: often referred to as
degradation or tarnishment of the
mark, describes the situation where
the goods for which the infringing signis used appeal to the public's senses in
such a way that the trade mark's
power of attraction is affected
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
108/173
Detriment to repute
AG Jacobs: often referred to as
degradation or tarnishment of the
mark, describes the situation where
the goods for which the infringing signis used appeal to the public's senses in
such a way that the trade mark's
power of attraction is affectedBenelux Court of Justice: Claeryn/
Klarein
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
109/173
Detriment to repute
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
110/173
Detriment to repute
HOLLYWOOD (chewing gum) v.
HOLLYWOOD (tobacco products);
BoA 2001 R283/1999-3
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
111/173
Detriment to repute
HOLLYWOOD (chewing gum) v.
HOLLYWOOD (tobacco products);
BoA 2001 R283/1999-3DERBI (motor- and bicycles) v.
DERBY QUEEN (gambling
machines); BoA 2006R334/2005-2
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
112/173
Detriment to repute
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
113/173
Detriment to repute
Court The Hague 2001
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
114/173
Detriment to repute
Court The Hague 2001
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
115/173
Detriment to repute
Court The Hague 2001
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
116/173
Taking unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
117/173
Taking unfair advantage
AG Jacobs (quoting F. Mosterts book):exploitation and free-riding on thecoattails of a famous mark or an
attempt to trade upon its reputation'
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
118/173
Taking unfair advantage
AG Jacobs (quoting F. Mosterts book):exploitation and free-riding on thecoattails of a famous mark or an
attempt to trade upon its reputation'
Difference between the two not obvious
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
119/173
Taking unfair advantage
AG Jacobs (quoting F. Mosterts book):exploitation and free-riding on thecoattails of a famous mark or an
attempt to trade upon its reputation'
Difference between the two not obvious
Of repute: Daewoo, the Rolls Royce
under the Korean cars
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
120/173
Taking unfair advantage
AG Jacobs (quoting F. Mosterts book):exploitation and free-riding on thecoattails of a famous mark or an
attempt to trade upon its reputation'
Difference between the two not obvious
Of repute: Daewoo, the Rolls Royce
under the Korean carsOf distinctiveness: skyping with us is
cheaper
T ki f i d
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
121/173
Taking unfair advantage
T ki f i d t
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
122/173
Taking unfair advantage
ABSOLUT (wodka) v.ABSSOLUTE (eyglasses); BoA2005 R1204/2004-1
T ki f i d t
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
123/173
Taking unfair advantage
ABSOLUT (wodka) v.ABSSOLUTE (eyglasses); BoA2005 R1204/2004-1
MARIE CLAIRE (fashionmagazine) v. MARIE CLAIRE(clothing); CoA The Hague and
Paris 2006
T ki f i d t
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
124/173
Taking unfair advantage
ABSOLUT (wodka) v.ABSSOLUTE (eyglasses); BoA2005 R1204/2004-1
MARIE CLAIRE (fashionmagazine) v. MARIE CLAIRE(clothing); CoA The Hague and
Paris 2006IGNIS (for electronic household
appliances) v. IGNIS (vehicles);BoA 2006 R550/2004-4
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
125/173
Taking unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
126/173
Taking unfair advantage
TDK (apparatus for recording)
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
127/173
Taking unfair advantage
TDK (apparatus for recording)
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
128/173
Taking unfair advantage
TDK (apparatus for recording)
vs.
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
129/173
Taking unfair advantage
TDK (apparatus for recording)
vs.
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
130/173
Taking unfair advantage
TDK (apparatus for recording)
vs.
TDK (clothing);
k f d
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
131/173
Taking unfair advantage
TDK (apparatus for recording)
vs.
TDK (clothing);
k f d
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
132/173
Taking unfair advantage
TDK (apparatus for recording)
vs.
TDK (clothing);
(CFI February 2007 T-477/04)
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
133/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
134/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
135/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field Future risk of thetaking of unfairadvantage by the
applicant of thereputation
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
136/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field Future risk of thetaking of unfairadvantage by the
applicant of thereputation
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
137/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field Future risk of thetaking of unfairadvantage by the
applicant of thereputation
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
138/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field Future risk of thetaking of unfairadvantage by the
applicant of thereputation
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
139/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field Future risk of thetaking of unfairadvantage by the
applicant of thereputation
TDK: sponsorship
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
140/173
TDK: sponsorship
activities in s ortin field Future risk of thetaking of unfairadvantage by the
applicant of thereputation
Source picture:
T ki f i d t
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
141/173
Taking unfair advantage
T ki f i d t
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
142/173
Taking unfair advantage
NASDAQ (financial services)
T ki f i d t
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
143/173
Taking unfair advantage
NASDAQ (financial services)
Taking nfai ad antage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
144/173
Taking unfair advantage
NASDAQ (financial services)
vs.
Taking unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
145/173
Taking unfair advantage
NASDAQ (financial services)
vs.
Taking unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
146/173
Taking unfair advantage
NASDAQ (financial services)
vs.
NASDAQ (device mark for
sportswear and clothing);
Taking unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
147/173
Taking unfair advantage
NASDAQ (financial services)
vs.
NASDAQ (device mark for
sportswear and clothing);CFI May 2007 T-47/06
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
148/173
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
149/173
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
150/173
Unfair advantage
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
151/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
152/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
CITIBANKfor financial services
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
153/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
CITIBANKfor financial services
vs. CITIfor customs agency services
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
154/173
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
155/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
CITIBANKfor financial services
vs. CITIfor customs agency services- High repute ofCITIBANK
- Natural overlap of clients
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
156/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
CITIBANKfor financial services
vs. CITIfor customs agency services- High repute ofCITIBANK
- Natural overlap of clients
- Relationship between services
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
157/173
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
158/173
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
159/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
Spa (mineral waters etc.) vs.Mineral Spa (soaps, perfumes,body care)
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
160/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
Spa (mineral waters etc.) vs.Mineral Spa (soaps, perfumes,body care)
- Risk of transfer of image
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
161/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
Spa (mineral waters etc.) vs.Mineral Spa (soaps, perfumes,body care)
- Risk of transfer of image- Overlap of public
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
162/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
Spa (mineral waters etc.) vs.Mineral Spa (soaps, perfumes,body care)
- Risk of transfer of image- Overlap of public
- Products are not so different
Unfair advantage
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
163/173
Unfair advantage
CFI 2008:
Spa (mineral waters etc.) vs.Mineral Spa (soaps, perfumes,body care)
- Risk of transfer of image- Overlap of public
- Products are not so different
- Similar messages conveyed: health,beaty, purity and richness in minerals
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
164/173
Action available
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
165/173
Action available
Mostly identical marks
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
166/173
Action available
Mostly identical marks
Inherent distinctiveness (no 2nd
thoughts)
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
167/173
Action available
Mostly identical marks
Inherent distinctiveness (no 2nd
thoughts)No theoretical likelihood of damage
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
168/173
Action available
Mostly identical marks
Inherent distinctiveness (no 2nd
thoughts)No theoretical likelihood of damage
In cases of
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
169/173
Action available
Mostly identical marks
Inherent distinctiveness (no 2nd
thoughts)No theoretical likelihood of damage
In cases of
Icon marks
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
170/173
Action available
Mostly identical marks
Inherent distinctiveness (no 2nd
thoughts)No theoretical likelihood of damage
In cases of
Icon marksAntagonism
Action available
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
171/173
Action available
Mostly identical marks
Inherent distinctiveness (no 2nd
thoughts)No theoretical likelihood of damage
In cases of
Icon marksAntagonism
Related products
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
172/173
THANKS!
-
8/14/2019 Pollini r 816/2001 2
173/173
THANKS!