NDLI: “U.S. Polo Assn. v. Polo-Polo” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 8(1)(b) – United States Polo Association v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Please wait, while we are loading the content...

“Daiichi Sankyo and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland” : Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Art. 207; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Arts. 27, 70 – Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. DEMO Anonimos Viomikhaniki kai Emporiki Etairia Farmakon

“Hundertwasser Scarf” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels I Regulation), Arts. 5(3), 6, 24; Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), Arts. 8(1), 24; Copyright Act, Secs. 1(1), 3, 5(2), 54(1)(5)

“Re: Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada” : Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, Chap. C-42, Secs. 2 “sound recording”, 19 – Re: Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc., Bell ExpressVu LLP, Cogeco Cable Inc., Eastlink, Quebecor Media, TELUS Communications Company, Canadian Association of Broadcasters and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic

“MyVideo” : Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), Art. 8(1); Copyright Act, Secs. 16, 31, 97

“Akuate Internet Services et al. v. Star India” : Copyright Act, Sec. 16 – Akuate Internet Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Onmobile Global Limited and Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

“U.S. Polo Assn. v. Polo-Polo” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 8(1)(b) – United States Polo Association v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

“Redtube/REDTUBE” : Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 Implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark, Rule 18(1) Jager & Polacek GmbH v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

“Rintisch” : First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to Approximate the Laws of the Member States Relating to Trade Marks, Art. 10(1) and (2)(a) – Bernhard Rintisch v. Klaus Eder

“MOST-Pralinen” : Trade Mark Act, Sec. 14(2)(1) and (2)

‘‘AstraZeneca’’ : EC Treaty, Art. 82; Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the Approximation of Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action Relating to Medicinal Products, Art. 4 – AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v. European Commission and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)

Mark Williams (ed.): The Political Economy of Competition Law in Asia. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton, 2013. pp. 438. ISBN-13: 978-1781001677. £94.50

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law : Volume 44

“U.S. Polo Assn. v. Polo-Polo” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 8(1)(b) – United States Polo Association v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Copyright Year	2013
Abstract	1. Under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No. 40/94, upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier mark, the mark applied for is not to be registered if there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier mark is protected. Such a likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the earlier mark. 2. The existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. 3. The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in relation to the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of the marks by the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood of confusion. In this regard, the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details. 4. It is quite possible that in a particular case an earlier mark used by a third party in a composite sign including the name of the company of the third party still has an independent distinctive role in the composite sign, without necessarily constituting the dominant element. In such a case, the overall impression produced by the composite sign may lead the public to believe that the goods or services in question come, at the very least, from companies which are linked economically, in which case the likelihood of confusion must be held to be established. 5. In the context of consideration of the likelihood of confusion, assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. Nevertheless, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.
Starting Page	105
Ending Page	106
Page Count	2
File Format	PDF
ISSN	00189855
Journal	IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Volume Number	45
Issue Number	1
e-ISSN	21950237
Language	English
Publisher	Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Publisher Date	2013-12-20
Publisher Place	Berlin, Heidelberg
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Political Science and International Relations Law

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

“Formula 1” : Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Article 8 – Formula One Licensing BV v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Global Sports Media Ltd.

“Wir Machen Das Besondere Einfach” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 7(1)(b) – Smart Technologies ULC v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

“BOTOLIST, BOTOCYL and BOTOX” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 8(5) – Helena Rubenstein SNC and L’Oréal SA v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Allergan Inc.

“Majtczak v. Feng Shen Technology and OHIM” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 51(1)(b) – Jarosław Majtczak v. Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

“Redtube/REDTUBE” : Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 Implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark, Rule 18(1) Jager & Polacek GmbH v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

“Textile Label” (Stofffähnchen) : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 15(1) – Colloseum Holding AG v. Levi Strauss & Co.

“Seated Figure” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs, Arts. 4–9, 25(1)(b) and (e), 61 – Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel, and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v. José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA

"Medusa" : EC Regulation No. 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark (CTR), Art. 9(1) sentence 2b; German Trade Mark Act, Sec. 14(2) No. 2; German Copyright Act, Secs. 2, 64

Review of United Kingdom Trade Mark and Design Decisions 2014

“U.S. Polo Assn. v. Polo-Polo” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 8(1)(b) – United States Polo Association v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Similar Documents

“Formula 1” : Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Article 8 – Formula One Licensing BV v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Global Sports Media Ltd.

“Wir Machen Das Besondere Einfach” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 7(1)(b) – Smart Technologies ULC v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

“BOTOLIST, BOTOCYL and BOTOX” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 8(5) – Helena Rubenstein SNC and L’Oréal SA v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Allergan Inc.

“Majtczak v. Feng Shen Technology and OHIM” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 51(1)(b) – Jarosław Majtczak v. Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

“Redtube/REDTUBE” : Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 Implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark, Rule 18(1) Jager & Polacek GmbH v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

“Textile Label” (Stofffähnchen) : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 15(1) – Colloseum Holding AG v. Levi Strauss & Co.

“Seated Figure” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs, Arts. 4–9, 25(1)(b) and (e), 61 – Herbert Neuman, Andoni Galdeano del Sel, and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v. José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA

"Medusa" : EC Regulation No. 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark (CTR), Art. 9(1) sentence 2b; German Trade Mark Act, Sec. 14(2) No. 2; German Copyright Act, Secs. 2, 64

Review of United Kingdom Trade Mark and Design Decisions 2014

“U.S. Polo Assn. v. Polo-Polo” : Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Mark, Art. 8(1)(b) – United States Polo Association v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)