header-logo header-logo

29 November 2013
Issue: 7586 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Intellectual property

Preparados Alimenticos, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) T-377/10, [2013] All ER (D) 218 (Nov)

The proceedings concerned registration as a mark for the word sign “Jambo Afrika”. The General Court of the European Union held that the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion should, as regards the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the marks in question, be based on the overall impression which they created, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of the marks in the mind of the average consumer of the goods or services in question played a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood. In that respect, the average consumer normally perceived a mark as a whole and did not proceed to analyse its various details. Further, where a sign consisted of both figurative and word elements, it did not automatically follow that it was the word element which should always be considered to be dominant. Furthermore, assessment of the similarity between two marks meant more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison should be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which did not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark might not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components. It was only if all the other components of the mark were negligible that the assessment of the similarity could be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element. That could be the case, in particular, where that component was capable on its own of dominating the image of that mark which members of the relevant public kept in their minds, such that all the other components were negligible in the overall impression created by that mark.

 

Issue: 7586 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll