Reading list: The Confusion Test in European Trade Mark Law

Ilanah Fhima & Dev S. Gangjee, The Confusion Test in
European Trade Mark Law
(2019)

A very helpful overview. From a US perspective, offers real
insights into how a system of registration primacy differs from a system of use
primacy. A couple of points that I specifically noted: the authors conclude,
based on “a substantial number of cases,” that courts that consider similarity
of marks first are more likely to find confusion. “This is because once the
tribunal has invested the effort in conducting the highly case-specific
comparison of the marks and found them to be similar, it is less likely to
dismiss confusion based on the comparatively formalistic comparison of goods. On
the other hand, if goods are considered first, it is easier to place more
reliance on this element of the test without having one’s perception clouded by
the work done to compare the marks.” I’m not sure one could say the same about
US cases.

It’s also striking how comparatively little distinctiveness
of the mark, or of shared elements of the parties’ marks, matters in the
European analysis versus US analysis, which is more likely to give a narrower
scope to a weaker mark. (Both approaches give broader scope to especially
strong marks, but European cases seem less willing to do the inverse.) That may
be something that relates to use-based versus registration-based approaches. As
the authors report, an analysis of European General Court decisions found “that
the distinctiveness of the senior mark had very little if any bearing on the
outcome of cases” and “visual similarity of marks played the greatest role in
assessing similarity of marks.” (As they note later, visual similarity may loom
larger in Europe because of language differences—for those who don’t understand
the meaning of a word in another language, conceptual similarity doesn’t really
matter.)

Unlike US cases, in Europe, distinctiveness (or relative
lack thereof) “cannot override the importance of similarity of marks and of
goods,” and the court often rests on similarity of marks and goods only,
wihtout reaching any result on “what the mark’s level of distinctiveness
actually was.” Language differences also inform this result: even where the
majority of EU languages would consider a common element to be descriptive, if
some might not, the doctrine indicates that people who used those languages
would perceive greater similarity and therefore face a greater likelihood of
confusion. As the authors conclude, “[t]he undesirable consequence of this
approach to global appreciation is to grant a broad legal monopoly to ‘weak’
marks.” The CJEU shows the greatest favoritism to weak marks, whereas the
EUIPO, national registries, and national courts “are more sceptical and seek to
narrow the scope of protection for such marks.”

Also, some useful statistics: As of mid-2018, “shapes or
three-dimensional marks constituted 0.55% (10,279) of EUTM applications and
0.41% (6,231) of registrations, while pure colours constituted 0.01% (104) of
EUTM applications and 0.01% (95) of registrations.” And I appreciated the point
that “the most revealing indicator of the commercial significance of colour and
external packaging marks is the extent to which the tobacco industry has sought
to preserve them” in its pitched battle against plain packaging requirements.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/3zccsBb

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s