Strong trade marks and the likelihood of confusion in European law

Legal context. One of the fundamental assumptions of trade marklaw is that provision should be made to prevent the registrationor commercial exploitation of trade marks that are likely tobe confused with earlier marks. The justification for this assumptionis however unclear. Is it to protect the expectation of itsowner that a trade mark will provide a comfort zone, an areawithin which other traders simply may not enter? Is it to encourageinvestment in the development of a relationship between thetrade mark owner and his prospective customers by offering interference-freemarketing opportunities? Is it to protect the efficiency ofthe market by facilitating the making of decisions by consumersas to which product or process they wish to purchase? Or isit to protect the vulnerable consumer against the personal consequencesof his inattention or inability to discern the differences betweenproducts or services? Key points. This article examines the development of Europeanlaw relating to the protection of strong trade marks, thosewhich are highly distinctive or well known, against similarmarks that may or may not be likely to cause consumer confusion.It demonstrates the manner in which the European Court of Justiceseeks to address the likelihood of confusion in terms whichappear to draw more from legal abstractions than from marketrealities. After giving a favourable review of the controversialdecision of that court in the PICARO/PICASSO case, the articlelists further issues which European trade mark litigation hasso far failed to address. Practical significance. Armed with an understanding of the principlesemployed by the European Court of Justice, trade mark proprietorsin Europe will obtain a better appreciation of the strategiesto be used in either challenging competitors' marks in courtor adopting commercial measures to combat them.     

AUTISM IN CHILDREN AND PARENTS:

Family court professionals are increasingly involved with divorces between parents of autistic children where the parents themselves may also have either diagnosed or undiagnosed autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Yet, there have been no published guidelines for the court professionals who are managing these cases (National Autistic Society, 1991; Singer, 2003 ). The goal of this article is to familiarize divorce professionals with the growing phenomenon of autism and to delineate specific recommendations for the management of these cases in the family law context.     

Time to play Catch-Up

‘Catch Us If You Can!!!’ is the improbable nameof an Italian weblog managed by Lorenzo Litta and mastermindedby veteran IP expert Stefano Sandri. Although it is rarely possibleto measure what a blog achieves, it is usually quite feasibleto identify what it tries to do. In this instance the bloggers’objective is to raise their readers’ sensitivity towardsintellectual property rights issues and to create a greaterawareness of the parameters of protection and permitted usein a culture which places a     

Veni, vidi, wiki

‘Veni, vidi, vici!’ (‘I came, I saw, I conquered’),Julius Caesar's memorable soundbite from the Battle of Zelain 47 BC, has been for nearly two millennia a byword for thetriumph of the new order over the old. Substitute the homophone‘wiki’ for ‘vici’ and the symbolismremains apt. While the rise of the personal computer, the developmentof the internet and the advent of mobile telephony have eachbeen hailed as the greatest transformative feature     

A film with an overt IP theme ...

Not many films have as overt an intellectual property themeas the Oscar-nominated The Man in the White Suit, a sweet-and-sourEaling comedy with compelling social content. The protagonist,Sidney Stratton (played by Sir Alec