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.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, use the same link but select the 'trial' option in the dropdown box. NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at email@example.com
similar marks, confusion, Danone, Randler, Robby Ehrmann