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/RestrictedAccess |
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 |
|