A recent Romanian case will provide food for thought for trademark practitioners concerned about others using similar marks, says Raluca Vasilescu.
Confusing similarity between trademarks is always a ‘hot’ issue for stakeholders. The issue itself is very subjective. No law is clear on exactly where the limits of confusion are. And even the jurisprudence can be contradictory.
This article concerns a decision issued by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Bucharest in an infringement case. The decision was made in 2009, but reasoning was only made available to the parties in the second half of 2010.
The importance of the decision lies in the fact that no risk of confusion was found, although the products were similar, because the court found that the level of similarity between the signs was too low to create confusion and that, because of the particulars of that segment of the market, confusion was not possible.
To continue reading, you need a subscription to WIPR. Start a subscription to WIPR for £455.
In-house feature articles, the archive and expert comment require a paid subscription. Subscribe now.
Want to give it a try? We are offering a two week free trial to the WIPR website – register and select “Free Trial” to begin access to the full WIPR archive and read the latest news, features and expert comment. Begin your free trial here.
Is your 2 week free trial about to end? Upgrade to a 12 month subscription for £455 now.
If you have already subscribed please login.
If you have any technical issues please email James Lynn on firstname.lastname@example.org.
similar marks, confusion, Danone, Randler, Robby Ehrmann