"1. For the purposes of Art 4(4)(a) of the First Council Directive 89/104 of 21st December 19881, where:
the earlier mark has a huge reputation for certain specific types of goods or services,
those goods or services are dissimilar or dissimilar to a substantial degree to the goods or services of the later mark,
(c) the earlier mark is unique in respect of any goods or services,
(d) the earlier mark would be brought to mind by the average consumer when he or she encounters the later mark used for the services of the later mark,
are those facts sufficient in themselves to establish (i) "a link" within the meaning of paragraphs [29] & [30] of Adidas-Salomon AG v. Fitnessworld Trading Ltd, Case C-408/01, [2003] ECR I-12537 and/or (ii) unfair advantage and/or detriment within the meaning of that Article?
If no, what factors is the national court to take into account in deciding whether such is sufficient? Specifically, in the global appreciation to determine whether there is a "link", what significance is to be attached to the goods or services in the specification of the later mark?
In the context of Art 4(4)(a), what is required in order to satisfy the condition of detriment to distinctive character? Specifically, does
(i) the earlier mark have to be unique,
(ii) is a first conflicting use sufficient to establish detriment to distinctive character and
(iii) does the element of detriment to distinctive character of the earlier mark require an effect on the economic behaviour of the consumer?"
0 comments: 
Subscribe in a reader