In this edition we explore complexities in trademark law regarding likelihood of confusion, highlighting cases where composite marks may or may not suggest a common origin.
Sometimes, answering that question is easy - but often not. Any trade mark lawyer worth their salt can recite the correct legal tests and case law for assessing whether there is a likelihood of confusion. However, applying that case law to the facts of each case and correctly predicting the outcome is an art, rather than a science. As has been said many times in previous cases, when making such an assessment, reasonable minds can differ and reach different conclusions.
The question can be particularly difficult to answer when confronted with a composite trade mark, which incorporates within it another's trade mark, or something very similar. Recent decisions in this country highlight the point.
EU and English case law has established that if an average consumer (of the goods or services in question) perceives a composite mark as consisting of two or more signs or components, one or more of which has a distinctive significance which is independent of the significance of the whole mark (i.e. it has an 'independent distinctive role' - in layman's terms, it 'might tell you from whom the goods/services originate') then there could be a likelihood of confusion - but it does not automatically follow that there is a likelihood of confusion. It is still necessary to consider whether average consumers would think that there was a common trade origin, leading to a likelihood of confusion.
Where an average consumer would perceive the composite mark as a unit, having a different meaning to the meanings of the separate components, then the components do not retain an independent role - and thus it is unlikely that there is a likelihood of confusion.
Easy to apply in practice? Well, consider the following examples that have arisen recently in the UK:
So, next time you think your trade mark adviser is 'sitting on the fence', when they say that there might, but might not, be a likelihood of confusion between a mark and a composite mark that incorporates within it the other mark (or something very similar), have some sympathy. Reasonable minds can differ and reach different conclusions!
We produce a range of insights and publications to help keep our clients up-to-date with legal and sector developments.
Sign up