header-logo header-logo

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

Intellectual property

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll