Confusion

Evidence that the defending firm’s ads confused consumers was “de minimis,” and online shoppers were savvy enough to distinguish between ads and organic search results. The sophisticated nature of…

Swatch sued Samsung for trademark infringement, arguing that Samsung allowed users to download infringing watch face apps from its Galaxy App Store (“SGA”). The Samsung case[1] shows that the UK…

Chiquita Brands queens it over Red Queen – General Court, 29 May 2024, T-79/23   The General Court (GC) has annulled another Board of Appeal decision. That in itself is worth reporting as this…

The General Court of the European Union (“GCEU”), annulling the Board of Appeal (“BOA”) decision, found that L’Oreal’s K K WATER mark is not confusingly similar to Heinze’s earlier K mark. It was not…

Manufacturer of “Mystic Tan” machines failed to show consumers were likely to be confused by salon’s use of its own solution in Mystic Tan booths. The federal district court in Akron, Ohio, did not…

In January 2020, Volkswagen (VW, the Opponent) filed an opposition against this trade mark application, alleging a likelihood of confusion with its earlier 3D shape registrations . The Applicant’s…

  A decision of the German Federal Patent Court dated 13 September 2021 (Case 26 W (pat) 20/20) shows the sometimes thin line between likelihood of confusion and exploitation of the reputation when…

Trial evidence supported the district court’s judgment, blocking registration of VAGISAN in the United States. The federal district court in Alexandria did not err in finding that a German company’s…

The first instance court of Barcelona held that that the trade mark device of a dinosaur on a biscuit must remain in the public domain, ruling against the claimant in a trade mark and unfair…