Scholarlink

<p><OrderedList> <ListItem> <ItemNumber>1.</ItemNumber> <ItemContent> <p>The protection of a trade mark under criminal law is not subordinated to an assessment that the original and the copy are “capable of being confused”.</p> </ItemContent> </ListItem> <ListItem> <ItemNumber>2.</ItemNumber> <ItemContent> <p>Indeed, an appreciable degree of similarity is indispensable, not just for protection under criminal law, but also for any other kind of legal protection. But the likelihood of confusion does not have to be realised, leading to an error on the part of the consumer.</p> </ItemContent> </ListItem> <ListItem> <ItemNumber>3.</ItemNumber> <ItemContent> <p>The credulity of incredulity of the consumer cannot act as an element capable of neutralising the protection of the trade mark under criminal law. Crimes against industrial property do not include, in the objective definition of the offence, the requirement that the infringement of the exclusive rights of the trade mark holder must be accompanied by credulity on the part of the purchaser, who, being confused, pays for a product of much lower quality than that which the purchaser believed to be purchasing and wished to purchase.</p> </ItemContent> </ListItem> </OrderedList></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

“Mr. Jon”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月29日

查看全文

摘要

1.

The protection of a trade mark under criminal law is not subordinated to an assessment that the original and the copy are “capable of being confused”.

2.

Indeed, an appreciable degree of similarity is indispensable, not just for protection under criminal law, but also for any other kind of legal protection. But the likelihood of confusion does not have to be realised, leading to an error on the part of the consumer.

 3.

The credulity of incredulity of the consumer cannot act as an element capable of neutralising the protection of the trade mark under criminal law. Crimes against industrial property do not include, in the objective definition of the offence, the requirement that the infringement of the exclusive rights of the trade mark holder must be accompanied by credulity on the part of the purchaser, who, being confused, pays for a product of much lower quality than that which the purchaser believed to be purchasing and wished to purchase.