Conceptual confusing similarity and pictorial trade marks

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Batty, Rob
dc.date.accessioned 2022-06-13T02:50:01Z
dc.date.available 2022-06-13T02:50:01Z
dc.date.issued 2022-01-04
dc.identifier.citation (2022). Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 11(4), 409-443.
dc.identifier.issn 2045-9807
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/2292/59771
dc.description.abstract <jats:p>Several high-profile rebrands, including those by Twitter and Starbucks, have involved removing text from logos. This move towards wordless, pictorial trade marks raises a difficult question about how the scope of protection of a registered trade mark should be determined. This article examines the particular issue of how much weight should be given to the idea or concept underlying a pictorial mark when assessing whether a defendant’s junior mark is ‘confusingly similar’. Drawing on legal principles and case examples from Europe, the United Kingdom, Singapore and New Zealand, it is claimed that courts and adjudicators should be careful not to overweight conceptual similarity. It is argued that a lack of care in assessing conceptual similarity risks awarding one trader overbroad protection, which may be tantamount to conferring on one trader a monopoly in an idea. A lack of care may also undermine the logic of a registration system by untethering protection from what is recorded on the Register, and may make trade mark law less predictable and certain. * The author declares that he was junior counsel in a case discussed in this article, Carabao Tawandang Co Ltd v Red Bull GmbH HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1975, 31 August 2006. The views represented in this article are the author’s own, and do not reflect the views of his employer at the time, or the views of the client represented in that particular case.</jats:p>
dc.language English
dc.publisher Edward Elgar Publishing
dc.relation.ispartofseries Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm
dc.subject Social Sciences
dc.subject Law
dc.subject Government & Law
dc.subject trade mark law
dc.subject likelihood of confusion
dc.subject pictorial marks
dc.subject conceptual similarity
dc.subject idea of a mark
dc.subject Europe
dc.subject United Kingdom
dc.subject Singapore
dc.subject New Zealand
dc.subject 1801 Law
dc.title Conceptual confusing similarity and pictorial trade marks
dc.type Journal Article
dc.identifier.doi 10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.01
pubs.issue 4
pubs.begin-page 409
pubs.volume 11
dc.date.updated 2022-05-04T06:28:18Z
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The author en
pubs.author-url http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000741044700002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=6e41486220adb198d0efde5a3b153e7d
pubs.end-page 443
pubs.publication-status Published
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RetrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Article
pubs.subtype Journal
pubs.elements-id 879536
pubs.org-id Law
pubs.org-id Faculty Administration Law
dc.identifier.eissn 2045-9815
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2022-05-04
pubs.online-publication-date 2022-01-04


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Browse

Statistics