Scholarlink

<p><UnorderedList Mark="None"><ItemContent><p><b>1. In the case of a complex mark, the assessment of the similarity of the signs cannot merely consider one component alone and compare it with the corresponding component of the other sign, since each of the disputed signs must be examined as a whole. However, this does not exclude the eventuality that the overall impression produced in the public’s memory by a complex mark may, in certain circumstances, be influenced by one or more of its components and, in such cases, where all the other components are of negligible importance, the assessment of similarity can be entrusted solely to an examination of those components.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>2. When a trade mark is composed of both verbal and figurative elements, the former are, in principle, more distinctive than the latter, given that the average consumer will more easily refer to the goods in question by mentioning the name of the mark than by describing its figurative element.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>3. However, word elements of a trade mark must not always be considered more distinctive than the figurative ones, since the figurative element may, especially through it shape, size, colour or placement in the sign, occupy a position equivalent to that of the word element.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>4. To identify the dominant component the court must therefore examine the intrinsic qualities of the figurative element and those of the word element of the mark applied for, as well as their respective positions.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>5. Although the autonomous nature and prerequisite of actions granted for the protection of industrial rights and those concerning unfair competition are different, the same infringement conduct may be relevant for the purposes of both an action</b> <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">in rem</Emphasis> <b>seeking the protection of a party’s exclusive rights and, concurrently, a personal action for unfair competition.</b></p></ItemContent></UnorderedList></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

“Thom Browne”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月1日

查看全文

摘要

1. In the case of a complex mark, the assessment of the similarity of the signs cannot merely consider one component alone and compare it with the corresponding component of the other sign, since each of the disputed signs must be examined as a whole. However, this does not exclude the eventuality that the overall impression produced in the public’s memory by a complex mark may, in certain circumstances, be influenced by one or more of its components and, in such cases, where all the other components are of negligible importance, the assessment of similarity can be entrusted solely to an examination of those components.

2. When a trade mark is composed of both verbal and figurative elements, the former are, in principle, more distinctive than the latter, given that the average consumer will more easily refer to the goods in question by mentioning the name of the mark than by describing its figurative element.

3. However, word elements of a trade mark must not always be considered more distinctive than the figurative ones, since the figurative element may, especially through it shape, size, colour or placement in the sign, occupy a position equivalent to that of the word element.

4. To identify the dominant component the court must therefore examine the intrinsic qualities of the figurative element and those of the word element of the mark applied for, as well as their respective positions.

5. Although the autonomous nature and prerequisite of actions granted for the protection of industrial rights and those concerning unfair competition are different, the same infringement conduct may be relevant for the purposes of both an action in rem seeking the protection of a party’s exclusive rights and, concurrently, a personal action for unfair competition.