The claimant sought an injunction against the defendants to restrain an alleged trade mark infringement in respect of the use of the mark ‘NUDE’ by the proposed product ‘STELLANUDE’.
Held: Despite the differences, it was ‘arguable that the sign STELLANUDE is similar to the mark NUDE.’ The case should be allowed to proceed.
Floyd J
[2009] EWHC 2154 (Ch)
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – LTJ Diffusion SA v Sadas Vertbaudet SA ECJ 20-Mar-2003
The Directive protected a trade mark owner against use in the course of trade of ‘any sign which is identical with’ the registered mark.
Held: A use was identical within the article if, when used, it both reproduced without any modification or . .
Cited – Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport ECJ 11-Nov-1997
The test of whether a sign is confusing is how the use of the sign would be perceived by the average consumer of the type of goods in question. ‘The likelihood of confusion must therefore be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors . .
Cited – Medion AG v Thomson multimedia Sales Germany and Austria GmbH (Approximation of Laws) ECJ 6-Oct-2005
Europa Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 5(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Use of the trade mark by a third party – Composite sign including the name of another party followed by the trade mark.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.374039