nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

10. The Average Consumer in a “Global” Perspective

verfasst von : Rasmus Dalgaard Laustsen

Erschienen in: The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trademark Law and Similar Fictions

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Starting from Sabel, this chapter analyses how the Court of Justice developed “the global appreciation test” and as part of this applied the relevant public. This chapter concludes that the “trinity decisions,” Sabel, Gut Springenheide and Lloyd, are fundamentals of the average consumer, with Sabel and Lloyd manifesting the average consumer in European trademark law as part of the global appreciation test. Especially, Sabel and Lloyd form the foundation of the average consumer in General Court case law, although rarely explicitly.

Based on national case law after Sabel, this chapter concludes that there is harmonisation between the different national jurisdictions, but that the level of the harmonisation is murky. First, since the judicial application of the average consumer as part of the global appreciation test often occurs in the UK, but due to less explicit ratios decidendi occurs more rarely in the Nordic countries, particularly in Denmark. Second, the UK judiciaries, in contrast with the Nordic judiciaries, clearly apply the likelihood of confusion standard narrowly as set out by the Court of Justice.

As for the relevant public as such, the consistency between the EU and the national judiciaries is also murky. The UK judiciaries at one end clearly apply the EU relevant public, where at the other end, the Danish judiciaries rarely apply the relevant public. Sweden and Norway fall between the UK and Denmark.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Likelihood of Confusion: Legislative Harmonisation?

Nächstes Kapitel Contextualisation of the Average Consumer

Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 22.

For instance, from current literature: Focusing mainly on the broader European level, Kur, Annette and Senftleben, Martin, ‘European Trade Mark Law: A Commentary’, (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2017), p. 220-231, Mühlendahl, Alexander von, Dimitris Botis, Spyros M. Maniatis, et al, ‘Trade Mark Law in Europe: A Practical Jurisprudence’, (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 311-370, Jaeger-Lenz, Andrea, ‘Article 8: Relative Grounds for Refusal’, in Hasselblatt, Gordian N. ed., Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) no 207/2009: A Commentary (1st edn, Beck/Hart, 2015), 198, p. 211-245 (registration), in particular p. 247-255 and p. 367-372 (infringement), Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), 245 – 332 and Davis, Richard, St Quintin, Thomas and Tritton, Guy, ‘Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe’, (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 369-380; the UK: Firth, Alison, Lea, Gary R. and Cornford, Peter, ‘Trade Marks: Law and Practice’, (4th edn, Jordans, 2016), p. 130-135, Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad, Gangjee, Dev and Johnson, Phillip ‘Intellectual Property Law’, (5th edn, Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 1031-1051 (registration) and p. 1103-1104 (infringement), Cornish, William R., Llewelyn, David, and Alpin, Tanya, ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights’, (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013), p. 736-738 (registration) and p. 764-769 (infringement) and Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 402-427 (registration) and p. 588-603 (infringement), and Chapter 3 on the average consumer consolidating the earlier supplement found in Mellor, James, Llewelyn, David, Moody-Stuart, Thomas et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Mames. 1st Supplement’, (1st edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2014), section 1A: Bernitz, Ulf, Karnell, Gunnar, Lars Pherson, et al, ‘Immaterialrätt Och Otillbörlig Konkurrens’, (14th edn, Jure Bokhandel, 2017), p. 285-292 and Wessman, Richard, ‘Varumärkeslagen: En Kommentar’, (1st edn, Wolters Kluwer, 2014), p. 35-42 (infringement) and p. 73-75 (registration); Denmark: Wallberg, Knud and Ravn, Michael Francke, ‘Varemærkeret: Varemærkeloven og Fællesmærkeloven Med Kommentarer’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2017), p. 161-167 (infringement) p. 310-341 (registration) and Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2018), p. 528-540 And; Norway: Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), Chapters 11-13, in particular p. 391-416.

See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.2.

See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.5.2.

See e.g. Chap. 11, Sect. 11.6.

See Chap. 8.

Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657.

Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819.

I.e., Almeida, Edward, Gulmann, Puissochet and Wathelet.

I.e., Inglesias (President), Jann, Kapteyn, Mancini and Sevón.

I.e., Hirsch, Murray and Ragnemalm.

I.e., “18 ‘Leather and imitation leather, products made therefrom not included in other classes; bags and handbags’ and 25 ‘Clothing, including tights, hosiery, belts, scarves, ties/cravats and braces; footwear; hats’” (the numbers refer to the Nice Agreement). Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 3.

Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 9.

Ibid, para 59.

Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 22.

Ibid, para 23 (italics added). “Aural” has also been denoted “phonetic.” See for instance MEGA Brands v. OHIM, Case C-182/14 P, [2015], para 31.

See Chap. 8, footnote 1.

As was clear from Chap. 8 there had been no consistency in the development by the Court of Justice of the average consumer in its cases before Sabel, specifically, in using the term “average consumer” and its assumed characteristics.

Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 37.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for eggs, [1990] OJ L173. This regulation was repealed by a regulation from 2006. I.e. the Council Regulation (EC) No 1028/2006 of 19 June 2006 on marketing standards for eggs, [2006] OJ L186/1 (see recital 2 of the regulation). Rules for implementing this regulation were laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 557/2007 of 23 May 2007 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1028/2006 on marketing standards for eggs, [2007] OJ L132/5.

Cf. art. 10(1) of the Egg Regulation.

Cf. art. 10(2)(e) of the Egg Regulation (italics added).

I.e., in breach of art. 10(2)(e) of the Egg Regulation. The questioning German court was the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht).

Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 29.

I.e., reference to respectively, GB-INNO, Case C-362/88, [1990] ECR I-667, Schutzverband v. Yves Rocher, Case C-126/91, [1993] ECR I-2361, Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb v. Clinique Laboratoires, Case C-315/92, [1994] ECR I-317 and Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe v. Mars, Case C-470/93, [1995] ECR I-1923. Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 30. See Chap. 8.

Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 31 (italics added).

Recital 18 of the UCPD. For other areas where this phrasing has also been applied, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.5.5.

Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, paras 35 and 37. See also Chap. 11, Sect. 11.2.2.

See Chap. 8.

See Chap. 11, Sect. 11.2.

Cf. art. 5(1)(b) of the TM Directive 1989 (art. 10(2)(b) of the TM Directive).

Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 4.

Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, para 10 (first question).

Ibid, para 11.

Ibid, para 12.

Ibid, para 19.

Ibid (italics added) referring to Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 17.

Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, para 25 referring to Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 23.

Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, para 26 referring to Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 31.

Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, para 26 (italics added).

I.e. the court did not did not explicitly confirm Jacobs’ preceding opinion that Sabel “provides much of the guidance required by the referring court [in Lloyd]” on provisions substantially identical. Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 15. See also Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, para 4. Sabel related to the likelihood of confusion in registration and Lloyd to infringement.

Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, para 26.

Ibid, paras 27-28 (italics added).

Ruiz-Picasso v. OHIM, Case C-361/04 P, [2006] ECR I-643, para 4.

See also Matratzen Concord v. OHIM I, Case C-3/03 P, [2004] ECR I-3657, para 27, and Medion v. Thomson Multimedia, Case C-120/04, [2005] ECR I-8551, para 27 and the opinion of Jacobs, Medion v. Thomson Multimedia Sales, Case C-120/04, [2005] ECR I-8551, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 18 and footnote 5 of the opinion.

Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, para 35.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Remington Consumer Products, Case C-299/99, [2002] ECR I-5475, para 63.

Proctor Gamble, in joined cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P, [2004] ECR I-5173, para 57.

Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, (referred to in the main text as “Interflora EWCA III”), para 117.

NYX v. Laboratoire Nuxe, TOSLO-2014-79765, [2015], NODC, p. 5.

Shoe Branding v. Adidas, Case C-396/15 P, [2016].

Specifically, the court stated that it should “be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. That global assessment, in relation to the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, as in the present case, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components.” Shoe Branding v. Adidas, Case C-396/15 P, [2016], para 26 (italics added).

OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529 referred to by nfon v. Fon Wireless, Case C-193/13 P, [2014], para 36.

Aceites del Sur-Coosur v. Koipe Corporación, Case C-498/07 P, [2009] ECR I-7371 referred to by nfon v. Fon Wireless, Case C-193/13 P, [2014], para 36. Aceites del Sur-Coosur v. Koipe Corporación also referred to OHIM v. Shaker, para 34. Aceites del Sur-Coosur v. Koipe Corporación, Case C-498/07 P, [2009] ECR I-7371, para 59.

I.e., Medion v. Thomson Multimedia, Case C-120/04, [2005] ECR I-8551, para 27, referred to by Aceites del Sur-Coosur v. Koipe Corporación, Case C-498/07 P, [2009] ECR I-7371, para 59 and OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529, para 34.

Matratzen Concord v. OHIM I, Case C-3/03 P, [2004] ECR I-3657, para 28, referred to by Aceites del Sur-Coosur v. Koipe Corporación, Case C-498/07 P, [2009] ECR I-7371, para 59 and OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529, para 34.

Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, para 40 referred to by OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529, para 34.

Mülhens v. OHIM, Case C-206/04 P, [2006] ECR I-2717, para 18 referred to by OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529, para 34. At the mentioned paragraph, Mülhens v. OHIM also referred to paragraph 40 of the earlier Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861.

It should be mentioned that although Mülhens v. OHIM did not refer to Lloyd on the global appreciation, it referred to both Sabel and Lloyd on the specific factors of the test. See Mülhens v. OHIM, Case C-206/04 P, [2006] ECR I-2717, para 19.

Lloyd was issued 22 June 1999 and Marca Mode v. Adidas 22 June 2000.

Shoe Branding v. Adidas, Case C-396/15 P, [2016], para 26, nfon v. Fon Wireless, Case C-193/13 P, [2014], para 36, Aceites del Sur-Coosur v. Koipe Corporación, Case C-498/07 P, [2009] ECR I-7371, para 60, OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529, para 35, Mülhens v. OHIM, Case C-206/04 P, [2006] ECR I-2717, para 19, Medion v. Thomson Multimedia, Case C-120/04, [2005] ECR I-8551, para 28, Matratzen Concord v. OHIM I, Case C-3/03 P, [2004] ECR I-3657, para 29, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, para 25 and Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 23.

For instance, Ruiz-Picasso v. OHIM, Case C-361/04 P, [2006] ECR I-643, paras 18-19, Castellblanch v. OHIM, Case C-131/06 P, [2007], para 55, Barbara Becker v. Harman, Case C-51/09 P, [2010] ECR I-5805, paras 32-33, Calvin Klein v. OHIM, Case C-254/09 P, [2010] ECR I-7989, paras 44-45, Bimbo SA v. OHIM, Case C-591/12 P, [2014], para 21 and BGW Beratungs-Gesellschaft v. Bodo Scholz, Case C-20/14, [2015], para 35.

Union Investment v. OHIM, Case C-317/10 P, [2011] ECR I-5471, para 45 (italics added) referring to Barbara Becker v. Harman, Case C-51/09 P, [2010] ECR I-5805, para 40.

Ibid.

Fetim v. OHIM, Case C-190/15 P, [2015], para 37.

See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.3.

This issue is addressed in Chap. 11.

Hence, the General Court held that “the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case” and referred to Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 16, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 18 and Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, para 40. Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM, Case T-104/01, [2002] ECR II-4359, para 26. In addition, it was held by the General Court in Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM that “the perception of marks in the mind of the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details.” On this the General Court referred to Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 23 and Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 25. Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM, Case T-104/01, [2002] ECR II-4359, para 28.

Laboratorios RTB v. OHIM, Case T-162/01, [2003] ECR II-2821.

Specifically, “[t]oilet soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices, deodorants for personal use and preparations for the cleaning, care, beautification of the skin, scalp and hair.” Ibid, para 5.

Ibid, para 16.

Ibid, para 17.

Ibid, para 20.

Ibid, para 22.

Ibid, para 26.

The General Court in Laboratorios RTB v. OHIM also built on the decisions of the Court of Justice. Ibid, paras 30-33. The General Court referred to Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, paras 16-17, where the Court of Justice built on its finding in Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 22 and Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, para 40 where the Court of Justice also built on its finding in Sabel para 22 and Canon paras 17 and 19.

Laboratorios RTB v. OHIM, Case T-162/01, [2003] ECR II-2821, paras 30-33.

Ibid, para 34.

Ibid, para 54.

Hence, the General Court in Laboratorios RTB v. OHIM, para 30 referred to Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM, Case T-104/01, [2002] ECR II-4359, para 25 of Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM, Case T-104/01, [2002] ECR II-4359 and in para 31 referred to Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM para 26. Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM para 25 referred to Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 29 and Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 17. On Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM para 26, see footnote 68 above.

On decisions not appealed to the Court of Justice. See for instance on goods: Koffiebranderij en Theehandel v. OHIM, Case T-66/03, [2004] ECR II-1765, para 21, 2004 July 13: Samar v. OHIM, Case T-115/03, [2004] ECR II-2939, para 29, New Look v. OHIM, Joined cases T-117/03 to T-119/03 and T-171/03, [2004] ECR II-3471, para 24, Wassen International v. OHIM, Case T-312/03, [2005] ECR II-2897, para 27, Cabel Hall Citrus v. OHIM, Case T-488/07, [2010], para 27, Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v. OHIM, Case T-220/09, [2011] ECR II-237, para 15, Infocit v. OHIM, Case T-85/14, [2015], para 26, Verus Eood v. OHIM, Case T-576/13, [2015], para 17, Iglotex v. OHIM, Case T-282/13, [2015], para 23, LG Developpement v. EUIPO, Case T-160/15, [2016], para 15, Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v. EUIPO, Case T-39/16, [2017], para 55, Enoitalia v. EUIPO, Case T-707/16, [2018], para 16 and Republic of Cyprus v. EUIPO II, Case T-847/16, [2018], para 21. On services and both goods and services: Zitro IP v. OHIM, Case T-665/13, [2015], para 17, 1&1 Internet v. OHIM, Case T-61/15, [2016], para 19, Auyantepui v. EUIPO, Case T-8/15, [2016], para 16, Messe Friedrichshafen v. EUIPO, Case T-224/16, [2017], para 31, Apax Partners UK v. EUIPO, Case T-209/16, [2017], para 19 and Deutsche Post v. EUIPO, Case T-537/15, [2018], para 26. The same picture emerges in decisions appealed to the Court of Justice. For some recent examples see: Gat Microencapsulation v. OHIM, Case T-720/13, [2015], para 24, Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik v. OHIM, Case T-247/14, [2016], para 33, Novomatic v. EUIPO, Case T-326/14, [2016], para 43, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Wise Dialog Bank, Case T-84/16, [2017], para 55 and Moscow Confectionery Factory v. EUIPO, Case T-795/16, [2018], 17.

This was also the case with Claudia Oberhauser v. OHIM, Case T-104/01, [2002] ECR II-4359.

Hence, the General Court in Phillips-Van Heusen v. OHIM stated that “it is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, as far as concerns the visual, aural or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, inter alia, their distinctive and dominant components.” The General Court based its findings on Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 23 and Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 25. Phillips-Van Heusen v. OHIM, Case T-292/01, [2003] ECR II-4335, para 47. This finding has been referred to by the General Court in many decisions. As for decisions from the General Court not appealed to the Court of Justice on goods, see for instance: Grupo El Prado Cervera v. OHIM, Case T-117/02, [2004] ECR II-2073, para 44, Samar v. OHIM, Case T-115/03, [2004] ECR II-2939, para 32, Lidl Stiftung & Co. v. OHIM (REWE-Zentral), Case T-296/02, [2005] ECR II-563, para 62, Vincenzo Fusco v. OHIM, Case T-185/03, [2005] ECR II-715, para 48, Wassen International v. OHIM, Case T-312/03, [2005] ECR II-2897, para 32, Mundipharma v. OHIM, Case T-256/04, [2007] ECR II-449, para 52, Cabel Hall Citrus v. OHIM, Case T-488/07, [2010], para 32 and Copernicus-Trademarks v. OHIM, Case T-684/13, [2015], para 60. On both goods and services: Grupo Sada v. OHIM, Case T-31/03, [2005] ECR II-1667, para 47, 2006 June 13, Inex v. OHIM, Case T-153/03, [2006] ECR II-1677, para 26, Volvo v. OHIM, Case T-434/07, [2009] ECR II-4415, para 30 On this point, Volvo v. OHIM referred to Phillips-Van Heusen v. OHIM, but also to Inex v. OHIM. I.e. Inex v. OHIM, Case T-153/03, [2006] ECR II-1677, para 26. A similar picture emerges in decisions appealed to the Court of Justice on goods: Ruiz-Picasso v. OHIM, Case T-185/02, [2004] ECR II-1739, para 53, Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn v. OHIM, Case T-356/02, [2005] ECR II-3445, para 49, L’Oréal v. OHIM, Case T-112/03, [2005] ECR II-949, para 63 and Longevity Health Products v. OHIM, Case T-363/09, [2010], para 26. On services: TeleTech Holdings v. OHIM, Case T-288/03, [2005] ECR II-1767, para 83.

Giorgio Beverly Hills v. OHIM (WHG), Case T-228/06, [2008], para 19.

OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529, para 35. One exception to this though is N & C Franchise v. EUIPO, Case T-792/16, [2017], para 29.

See for instance, the General Court’s decisions appealed to the Court of Justice on goods: New Yorker SHK Jeans v. OHIM, Case T-415/09, [2011], para 48, Clorox Company v. OHIM, Case T-135/11, [2012], para 22, WeserGold Getränkeindustrie, Case T-278/10, [2012], para 43, Lancôme v. OHIM, Case T-204/10, [2012], para 22, Bimbo v. OHIM, Case T-569/10, [2013], para 55, Tetra Pharm (1997) v. EUIPO, Case T-441/16, [2017], para 38 and Moscow Confectionery Factory v. EUIPO, Case T-795/16, [2018], para 29. On services and both goods and services: Argo Group v. OHIM, Case T-247/12, [2014], para 32, Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik v. OHIM, Case T-247/14, [2016], para 45 and Wise Dialog Bank, Case T-84/16, [2017], para 70.

Without referring to Lloyd, the General Court has time and again referred to paragraph 42 from Mundipharma v. OHIM including a passage on the contextualisation of the average consumer: “As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind that, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, account should be taken of the average consumer of the category of products concerned, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (see, by analogy, Case C-342/97 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer [1999] ECR I-3819, paragraphs 25 and 26).” Mundipharma v. OHIM, Case T-256/04, [2007] ECR II-449, para 42.

See Chap. 11, Sect. 11.4.1.2, including the decisions mentioned in footnote 218.

Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 59 (italics added). Later in his opinion Jacobs also stated that “[m]oreover, trade-mark protection in respect of conceptual similarity does not appear to be uncommon amongst Member States.” Ibid, para 62. As addressed in Chap. 9, Sect. 9.3.2, the legislatures at the time had introduced the likelihood of confusion standard.

See Chap. 9, Sect. 9.3.2.1.

Cornish pointed out that in infringement the actual use by the senior owner of its trademark did not matter in terms of trademark law whereas it did under passing off. Cornish, William R., ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks, Allied Rights’, (1st edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1981), p. 560. See similarly on registration, ibid, p. 530-532 (and the successor Cornish, William R., Llewelyn, David, and Alpin, Tanya, ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights’, (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013), p. 735-738) and White, T. A. Blanco, and Robin, Jacob, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (10th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1972), p. 174-175 (and the successor Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 426 and 589). The current scholarly accounts of trademark law deal with passing off and trademark law separately, and the likelihood of confusion standard is dealt with as distinct from passing off. This is not least so due to the influence of Sabel and the subsequent decisions introducing the global appreciation test. For an account of the distinction between passing off and trademark law in the UK, see Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 748.

Cornish, William R., ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks, Allied Rights’, (1st edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1981), p. 486-487 (and the successor Cornish, William R., Llewelyn, David, and Alpin, Tanya, ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights’, (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013), p. 755-769). See also White, T. A. Blanco, and Robin, Jacob, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (10th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1972), chap. 17 (and the successor Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), Chapter 3 and p. 588-603).

In Danish: “hvorvidt Mærker ere hinanden saa lige, at de let kunne forvexles med hinanden, bør den afgjørende Vægt lægges paa Totalindtrykket og ikke paa de Uligheder, som muligt kunne findes.” Nordic TM Proposal 1882, p. 41.

In Danish: “Kjøber” and “Publikum.”

See among others, on Swedish law: Heiding, Sture, ‘Om Registrerade Varumärken Och Inarbetade Kännetecken’, (1st edn, Almqvist & Wiksells, 1946), p. 86-98, Heiding, Sture, ‘Svensk Varumärkes Rätt’, (3rd edn, Affärsekonomi, 1966), p. 40-51, Pherson, Lars, ‘Varumärken från Konsumentsynpunkt: En Rättsvetenskaplig Studie’, (1st edn, Liber Förlag, 1981), chapter 4 and Thommessen, Ø., ‘Lovene om Varemerker og Fellesmerker av 3. Mars 1961’, (1st edn, Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 1961), p. 25-27 and p. 31-32. Danish law: Andreasen, Hardy, ‘Varemærkeretten i Konkurrenceretlig Belysning. En Retssammenlignende Analyse Af Varemærkerettens Grundbegreber Og En Fremstilling Af Ejendomstetten Til Varemærker’, (1st edn, Ejnar Munksgaard, 1948), 274-332, Carlsen, Rigmor, ‘Varemærker : Registreringspraksis’, (1st edn, Direktoratet for Patent- og Varemærkevæsenet, 1980), p. 48-62 (mainly on registration), Hude, Harry, and Olsen, Julie, ‘Haandbog i Varemærkeret: Kommenteret Udgave Af Lov Om Varemærker Af 7. April 1936’, (1st edn, Reitzel, 1945), p. 170-216 (registration) and 310-345 (infringement), Kobbernagel, Jan, ‘Konkurrencens Retlige Regulering II: Mærkeretten’, (1st edn, Nyt Nordisk Forlag, 1967), chapter 6, Koktvedgaard, Mogens, ‘Konkurrenceprægede Immaterialretspositioner: Bidrag til Læren om de Lovbestemte Enerettigheder og Deres Forhold til den Almene Konkurrenceret’, (1st edn, Juristforbundet, 1965), in particular p. 168-181, Koktvedgaard, Mogens, ‘Lærebog i Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Fotoret, Patentret, Mønsterret, Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 1988), p. 231-241 (and the successor, now Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2018), p. 524-540), Koktvedgaard, Mogens, and Wallberg, Knud, ‘Varemærkeloven af 6. Juni 1991 og Fællesmærkeloven af 6. Juni 1991 med Indledning og Kommentarer’, (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 1994), p. 23-28 (overall), p. 60-65 (infringement) and p. 117-127 (registration) (and the successor, now Wallberg, Knud and Ravn, Michael Francke, ‘Varemærkeret: Varemærkeloven og Fællesmærkeloven Med Kommentarer’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2017), p. 62-66 (overall), p. 161-178 (infringement) and p. 310-342 (registration)). Norwegian law: Knoph, Ragnar, ‘Åndsretten’, (1st edn, Nationaltrykkeriet, 1936), p. 454-459, Lassen, Birger Stuevold, ‘Oversikt Over Norsk Varemerkerett’, (2nd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 1997), chapter 11 (generally on confusion), chapter 12 (on confusion between the products) and chapter 13 (on confusion between the marks) (and the successor Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), same chapter numbers).

In Swedish: “Skiljaktighet i vissa delar hindrar ej att märkena äro att anse som förväxlingsbara, ty en ledande grundsats är att man skall bedöma den förväxlingsbara likheten efter totalintrycket.” Heiding, Sture, ‘Svensk Varumärkes Rätt’, (3rd edn, Affärsekonomi, 1966), p. 42.

In Danish: “den fundamentale Læresætning, der benævnes Helhedsgrundsætningen.” Andreasen, Hardy, ‘Varemærkeretten i Konkurrenceretlig Belysning. En Retssammenlignende Analyse Af Varemærkerettens Grundbegreber Og En Fremstilling Af Ejendomstetten Til Varemærker’, (1st edn, Ejnar Munksgaard, 1948), p. 284.

In Danish: “sundt og godt, men vanskeligt at efterleve.” Koktvedgaard, Mogens, ‘Lærebog i Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Fotoret, Patentret, Mønsterret, Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 1988), p. 236.

In Danish: “detailforskelle.” Ibid.

100

In Norwegian: “Det er helhedsindtrykket av merket som til syvende og sidst blir avgjørende for forvekslingsmuligheten.” Knoph, Ragnar, ‘Åndsretten’, (1st edn, Nationaltrykkeriet, 1936), p. 456.

101

In Danish: “Det er den almindelige opfattelse i nordisk og fremmed ret, at varemærkerettens forvexlingsprøve skal foretages på basis af den antagelige reaktion hos vedkommende normalforbruger.” The Danish word “normal” translates into the English words “normal,” “ordinary,” and “average.” Koktvedgaard, Mogens, ‘Konkurrenceprægede Immaterialretspositioner: Bidrag til Læren om de Lovbestemte Enerettigheder og Deres Forhold til den Almene Konkurrenceret’, (1st edn, Juristforbundet, 1965), p. 177.

102

The more specific judicial development of the average consumer, including its contextualisation, is analysed in the following chapter.

103

See Chap. 9, Sect. 9.3.2.1.

104

O2 v. Hutchison, [2006] EWHC 534 (Ch), paras 107-120.

105

Ibid, para 121.

106

Now Lord Justice with the UK Court of Appeal.

107

Now Justice with the UK High Court.

108

“Both Mr Arnold and Mr Hobbs agreed on the approach that the court should take in assessing the likelihood of confusion. They each subscribed to the following propositions, which I accept as accurately summarising the law:

“the likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors;” [Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 22];

ii)

the matter must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods/services in question; Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 23; 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; [Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 27];

iii)

the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details; [Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 23];

iv)

the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must therefore be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components; [Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 23];

a lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods/services and vice versa; [Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 17];

vi)

there is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier trade mark has a highly distinctive character either per se or because of the use that has been made of it; [Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 24];

vii)

mere association, in the sense that the later mark brings the earlier mark to mind, is not sufficient; [Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, para 26];

viii)

further, 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 v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, para 41];

ix)

but if the association between the marks causes the public to wrongly believe that the respective goods/services come from the same or economically linked undertakings, there is a likelihood of confusion; [Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 29].” O2 v. Hutchison, [2006] EWHC 534 (Ch), para 122 (italics and emphasis added) (the case names are inserted to match those used in this book).

109

“On the basis of these and other cases the Trade Marks Registry has developed the following useful and accurate summary of key principles sufficient for the determination of many of the disputes coming before it:

(a)

the likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors;

(b)

the matter must be judged through the eyes of 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;

(c)

the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details;

(d)

the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must normally be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components, but it is only when all other components of a complex mark are negligible that it is permissible to make the comparison solely on the basis of the dominant elements;

(e)

nevertheless, the overall impression conveyed to the public by a composite trade mark may, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components;

(f)

and beyond the usual case, where the overall impression created by a mark depends heavily on the dominant features of the mark, it is quite possible that in a particular (an element corresponding to an earlier trade mark may retain an independent distinctive role in a composite mark, without necessarily constituting a dominant element of that mark);

(g)

a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa;

(h)

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;

(i)

mere association, in the strict sense that the later mark brings the earlier mark to mind, is not sufficient;

(j)

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; and

(k)

if the association between the marks causes the public to wrongly believe that the respective goods [or services] come from the same or economically-linked undertakings, there is a likelihood of confusion.”

Specsavers v. Asda, [2012] EWCA Civ 24, para 52. The elements of the global appreciation test were derived from the following Court of Justice decisions without any references to specific paragraphs of the decisions: Sabel v. Puma, Case C-251/95, [1997] ECR I-6191, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, Matratzen Concord v. OHIM I, Case C-3/03 P, [2004] ECR I-3657, Medion v. Thomson Multimedia Sales, Case C-120/04, [2005] ECR I-8551 and OHIM v. Shak05 P, [2007] ECR I-45/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529. See ibid, para 51.

110

J.W. Spear v. Zynga, [2015] EWCA Civ 290, para 34.

111

Comic Enterprises v. Twentieth Century Fox, [2014] EWHC 185 (Ch), para 108. Wyand QC referred to the same decisions of the Court of Justice as Kitchin LJ in Specsavers v. Asda. Ibid, para 107.

112

J.W. Spear v. Zynga, [2015] EWCA Civ 290, para 33.

113

Hence, it was held by Kitchin LJ that to the points set out by him in Specsavers v. Asda “should be added the further guidance provided by the Court of Justice in [Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 29] that the risk that the public might believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings, constitutes a likelihood of confusion for the purposes of the provision.” Maier v. ASOS, [2015] EWCA Civ 220, para 76.

114

See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.4.

115

Classes 32 and 33 of the Nice Agreement. Mast-Jägermeister v. Vin & Sprit, T 2982-01, [2003], SESC. The decision was furthermore analysed earlier, given the duty to EU consistent interpretation. See Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.2.1.

116

In Swedish: “Vid bedömning av ett känneteckens förväxlingsbarhet skall en helhetsbedömning göras, dvs. alla föreliggande omständigheter som inverkar på frågan om förväxlingsbarhet skall prövas.” Reference was made to NJA II 1960 s. 227.

117

Mast-Jägermeister v. Vin & Sprit, T 2982-01, [2003], SESC, p. 3.

118

In Swedish: “att omsättningskretsen kan tro att spritdryckerna kommer från företag med i vart fall ekonomiska band.” Ibid, p. 5 (italics added).

119

Mast-Jägermeister v. Vin & Sprit, T 799-99, [2001], SECA.

120

Ibid, p. 6.

121

IFX v. PN, T 2228-00, [2003], SESC, p. 4-5.

122

Class 35 of the Nice Agreement.

123

The court held that “the services in class 35 and IFX’s service [the junior mark owner] do not compete with or complement each other even if the aim of both services arguably is to support the running of a company.” In Swedish: “Tjänsterna i klass 35 och IFX’s tjänst varken konkurrerar med eller kompletterar varandra även om ändamålen med dem kan sägas vara att utgöra ett stöd i driften av företag.” Ibid, p. 8. The SE Supreme Court also stated in its conclusion that there was a “low degree” of confusion between the services. Ibid, p. 9.

124

In Swedish: “Risken för att genomsnittskonsumenten av tjänsterna skall tro att tjänsterna härstammar från samma företag eller från företag med ett ekonomiskt samband.” IFX v. PN, T 2228-00, [2003], SESC, p. 8. The SE Supreme Court reversed the unanimous decision of the SE Court of the Appeal. Nihlmark v. IFX Infoforex Scandinavia, T 900-96, [2000], SECA.

125

Cf. class 36 of the Nice Agreement.

126

Folksam v. Folkia, T12057-11, [2012], SEDC, p. 44-45.

127

In Swedish: “omsättningskrets utgörs av den svenska allmänheten, dvs. män och kvinnor boende i hela Sverige i åldern 18 år och äldre.” Ibid, p. 4-5 and p. 39, Folksam v. Folkia, T 289-13, [2014], SECA, p. 10 (italics added).

128

Folksam v. Folkia, T 289-13, [2014], SECA, p. 11. Reference was made to Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 30.

129

Folksam v. Folkia, T12057-11, [2012], SEDC, p. 45 and Folksam v. Folkia, T 289-13, [2014], SECA, p. 12.

130

Cf. art. 9(1)(c) of the TM Regulation 2009 (art. 9(2)(c) of the TM Regulation) and § 10(3), ch. 1 of the SE TM Act 2010. Folksam v. Folkia, T 289-13, [2014], SECA, p. 15-16.

131

Folksam v. Folkia, T12057-11, [2012], SEDC, p. 47-48.

132

Aspects of the grounds given by Folkia (the junior owner) for the appeal touches upon some key aspects of applying the relevant public in context, and as such they are addressed in the following chapter.

133

Länsförsäkringar v. Matek, T 3403-14, [2017], SESC, paras 10-11. The SE Supreme Court merely confirmed the finding by the SE Court of Appeal in Matek v. Länsförsäkringar, T 3270-13, [2014], SECA, p. 5-6. The likelihood of confusion had to be decided between a senior EU trademark (Länsförsäkring’s junior figurative mark) and a figurative national Swedish mark. The senior owner had its mark registered for certain services and goods, but the dispute concerned the similarity between its real estate affairs services vis-a-vis the services of the junior mark owner, i.e. the selling and making of pre-fabricated wooden houses.

134

Class 34 of the Nice Agreement.

135

Swedish Match v. V2 Distribution, T 768-14, [2015], SECA, p. 20.

136

In Kraft Foods v. Mars, the SE Court of Appeal had to decide if there was a likelihood of confusion between a senior figurative mark and two junior figurative marks and a word mark. The senior mark was a stylised version of the letter “m” (used by Kraft) registered in Sweden for certain chocolate products in class 30 of the Nice Agreement. The junior figurative marks were stylised versions of the letter “m” and of the letters “m & m” and a wordmark M&M. The SE Court of Appeal concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the figurative marks but not between the senior figurative mark and the junior word mark. See in particular, Kraft Foods v. Mars, T 14298-09, [2015], SEDC, p. 11 and p. 13-16.

137

Lube v. Dansk Droge, U.2000.506H, [1999], (DKSC), p. 506-510. The junior word mark was MEGASOL and the senior registered word mark PIKASOL. Both used their marks in relation to sale of fish supplement capsules.

138

In Danish: “Ud fra en samlet bedømmelse af de to mærker finder retten ikke, at der er risiko for forveksling.” Ibid, p. 514.

139

Ibid, p. 515.

140

See Ankenævnet v. Chantelle, U.2003.2366H, [2003], (DKSC), p. 2370.

141

In Danish: “Efter en helhedsvurdering finder Højesteret herefter, at der ikke er godtgjort en sådan lighed mellem mærkerne eller risiko for forveksling.” Ankenævnet v. Chantelle, U.2003.2366H, [2003], (DKSC), p. 2371.

142

Saint-Gobain v. Richter-System, U.2006.1203H, [2006], (DKSC), p. 1207.

143

Ibid, p. 1208.

144

In Danish: “Efter vores opfattelse er mærkerne som helhed imidlertid efter en visuel bedømmelse klart forvekslelige.” Ibid, p. 1208-1209.

145

Infringement: The DK MCH Court referred to a certain “market segment” and the DK Supreme Court referred to ““customers” in B-Young v. Mind Companies, U.2007.1477H, [2007], (DKSC), p. 1481-1482, and no reference was made by the DK MCH Court to the relevant public, but in assessing the facts the DK Supreme Court referred to the “groups of customers” of the parties in TBL Trailer v. TLT, U.2010.1908H, [2006] (DKSC), p. 1911. Registration: The DK MCH Court and DK Supreme Court referred to the “average consumer” in Ankenævnet v. Nestlé (prev. Novartis), U.2009.754, [2008], (DKSC), p. 756-757 and Elite Licensing v. Elite NYC, U.2012.3383H, [2012], (DKSC), p. 3889-3895.

146

Ankenævnet v. Nestlé (prev. Novartis), U.2009.754, [2008], (DKSC), p. 756-757.

147

In Danish: “Der er ingen risiko for, at gennemsnitsforbrugeren skulle forveksle Coop-skoen med Pumas sko.” PUMA v. Coop Danmark, U.2011.3433, [2013], (DKSC), p. 3436 (the argument was made before the DK MCH Court) (italics added).

148

In Danish: “Forbrugerne.” Ibid, p. 3436-3437.

149

Ibid, p. 3438.

150

UfR publishes all significant decisions of the DK Supreme Court decisions and the principle decisions of lower courts.

151

See for instance, the note in its entirety, in B-Young v. Mind Companies, U.2007.1477H, [2007], (DKSC) “U 1989.216 H, U 1998.1189 S, U 2003.2366 H, Samling af afgørelser fra EF-domstolen 1997 I s. 6191 (dom af 11/11 1997 i sag C-251/95 Sabel BV mod Puma AG), Retten i Første instans’ dom af 16/3 2005 i sag T-112/03 l’Oreal SA mod Revlon SA, Palle Bo Madsen: Markedsret, Del 2, 4. udg. (2002), s. 164-65, 168-69, 177-79, Knud Wallberg: Varemærkeret, 3. udg. (2004), s. 30, 69, 95,98-99 og 189, Mogens Koktvedgaard: Lærebog i immaterialret, 7. udg. ved Jens Schovsbo (2005), s. 360, 395, 399.”

152

For further on the notes of court decisions as published in UfR, see former DK Supreme Court judge, Zahle, in Zahle, Henrik, ‘At Forske Ret - Essays Om Juridisk Forskningspraksis’, (1st edn, Gyldendal, 2007), p. 56-60.

153

Class 5 of the Nice Agreement.

154

Class 3 of the Nice Agreement.

155

In Norwegian: “avgjøres etter en samlet vurdering hvor graden av vareslagslikhet og graden av kjennetegnslikhet vil være sentrale elementer.”

156

In Norwegian: “kreves at man må regne med at en ikke ubetydelig del av omsetningskretsen vil bli villedet.” Mozell, HR-1995-167-B, [1995], NOSC, 1916 and Lassen, Birger Stuevold, ‘Oversikt Over Norsk Varemerkerett’, (2nd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 1997), p. 266. See further on the legislative requirement of the NO TM Act 1961 in Chap. 10, Sect. 10.3.2.3.

157

Klagenemnda v. W Pelz, HR-1998-63-A, [1998], NOSC, p. 1991-1993.

158

Fetter Klovn Karl v. TOP-TOY, HR-1999-34-A, [1999], NOSC, p. 646.

159

Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC.

160

The senior mark was registered for the following products: goods of classes 8, 16 and 21, and services of classes 35, 41 and 43 of the Nice Agreement. The junior mark was registered for the following products: goods of classes 29, 30 and 32, and services of classes 41 and 43 of the Nice Agreement.

161

In Norwegian: “Jeg kan ikke se at de spørsmål som denne saken reiser, gir andre løsninger etter EU-retten enn det vi etter norsk rett ville ha kommet til uten EU-retten.” Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC, para 38.

162

In Norwegian: “vurderingsnorm.”

163

In Norwegian: “Som utgangspunkt skal det her skje en skjønnsmessig helhetsvurdering med grunnlag i de konkrete forhold.” Ibid, para 40. Tønder referred to Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 19.

164

The quotes in Norwegian: “realitetsforskjell,” “en ikke ubetydelig del av omsetningskretsen” and ““gjennomsnittsforbrukeren” av den aktuelle produkttype vil oppfatte varemerkene.” Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC, para 41.

165

The Norwegian “opplyst” may translate e.g. into the English “educated” and “well-informed.”

166

In Norwegian: “om en alminnelig opplyst, rimelig oppmerksom og velinformert forbruker av gourmetmat og restauranttjenester m.v. vil kunne blande merkene sammen.” See Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, TOSLO-2006-86520, [2006], NODC, p. 6 and Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC, para 41.

167

The dissent appears in ibid, paras 68-80.

168

Esthetique Norge v. Parfyme Handlernes Innkjøpssamarbeid, LB-2010-94902, NOCA, p. 6. The NO Supreme Court did not allow an appeal to the court.

169

Ranstad Holding v. Top Temp Holding, LB-2012-154945, [2014], NOCA, p. 7. Although this decision does not refer explicitly to Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC, para 41, it uses the same wording.

170

Pangea Property Partners v. Klagenemnda, LB-2014-52230, [2015], NOCA, p. 5-6.

171

Pangea Property Partners v. Klagenemnda, HR-2016-01993-A, [2016], NOSC, para 74.

172

Pangea Property Partners v. Klagenemnda, LB-2014-52230, [2015], NOCA, p. 6.

173

It has to borne in mind though that the conclusions on the historical aspects are merely tentative, since no historical analysis as such has been conducted. See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.3.

174

O2 v. Hutchison, [2006] EWHC 534 (Ch), para 122.

175

Specsavers v. Asda, [2012] EWCA Civ 24, para 52.

176

IFX v. PN, T 2228-00, [2003], SESC, p. 8.

177

Ankenævnet v. Nestlé (prev. Novartis), U.2009.754, [2008], (DKSC), p. 756-757.

178

Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC, para 41.

179

In Swedish: “genomsnittskonsument.”

180

In Swedish: “omsättningskretsen.” Mast-Jägermeister v. Vin & Sprit, T 799-99, [2001], SECA, p. 6.

181

In Swedish: “konsumenterna.” Ibid, p. 7-8.

182

In Swedish: “köpare.” Ibid, p. 8.

183

In Danish: “normale forbruger.”

184

In Danish: “forbrugere.” PUMA v. Coop Danmark, U.2011.3433, [2013], (DKSC), p. 3438.

185

In Danish: “omsætningskreds.”Ankenævnet v. Chantelle, U.2003.2366H, [2003], (DKSC), p. 2371.

186

In Danish: “kundekreds” Coop Danmark v. Puma, U.2008.446H, [2007], (DKSC), p. 453.

187

In Norwegian: “kjøpende publikum.” Pelz v. Klagenemnda, LB-1997-2383, [1998], NOCA, p. 4-5.

188

In Norwegian: “vanlige forbruker.” Søtt + Salt v. Pascal Drift, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC, para 13.

189

In Norwegian: “gjennomsnittsforbrukeren.” Ibid, para 24.

190

Ibid, para 41.

191

See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.6 and Chap. 6, Sect. 6.7.

192

Søtt + Salt v. Pascal Drift, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC, para 41.

Titel: The Average Consumer in a “Global” Perspective
verfasst von: Rasmus Dalgaard Laustsen
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trademark Law and Similar Fictions
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26349-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-26350-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26350-8_10