Abstract:
Two recent decisions of the European Court of Justice (EeJ) 1 present an opportunity to revisit the dilution debate. To what extent does the new law really mean «no-confusion-liability" and is the there any justification for such an extension in trade mark protection? So far, the New Zealand courts have not been squarely confronted with the issue, at least as far as infringement is concerned. A few Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand ( IPONZ) d ecisions and resul ting appeals have attempted to unlock the mysteries of s.2 5 (1) (c), a partial anti-dilution provision. T his article looks at the rationale for anti-dilution , recent Unit ed Kingdo m/ECJ decisions and their relevance to interpreting the New Zeal and provisions.
