Analysis of IP practice, AI technology and international protection, alongside news from IPLEX. Explore the articles in English.
336 articles and updates
106 articles
The court considers appearance, sound and meaning objectively and in the overall impression of each mark. Visual features may be particularly significant where they dominate that impression.
Read articleA composite mark need not always be understood or pronounced in full. Where its elements are not naturally inseparable, comparison may focus on a distinctive part.
Read articleService-mark similarity is assessed objectively through overall and separate observation of appearance, sound and meaning, focusing on how consumers and traders perceive the source of the services.
Read articleThe wording “DOHC” is unrelated to the bag and wallet retail services at issue and dominates the mark, giving it strong distinctiveness. The small bird graphic makes a limited contribution to the overall impression.
Read article① Both marks consist of stylized anchor designs and do not readily evoke a name or concept other than an anchor. ② The court considered the written and visual evidence in Exhibits 10 through 93, including their subparts, together with the overall arguments.
Read articleWhere the components of a mark are not naturally inseparable, an independently distinctive element may determine how consumers pronounce or understand it.
Read articleAnalysis of a dominant element or separate component supports the assessment of the mark as a whole. Even if one aspect of appearance, sound or meaning is similar, the marks may remain distinguishable where consumers' overall impressions clearly avoid confusion about origin.
Read articleComparison of the earlier registered mark and the applied-for mark for veterinary medicines and vaccines, including products for dogs, cats and horses.
Read articleThe registered service mark and the earlier mark consisting of “Ceragem” were found dissimilar in appearance and concept.
Read articleThe cited Trademark Act provision requires the applied-for mark to be identical or similar to another person's earlier registration and to cover identical or similar goods. Similarity is assessed objectively through the mark's overall appearance, sound and meaning.
Read articleVisual similarity concerns whether the words, graphics and symbols of the marks could be confused as indicators of origin. Assess their overall visual impressions as encountered separately, rather than relying solely on a side-by-side comparison.
Read articleThe registered mark comprises five Chinese characters. The smaller “化粧品” element directly indicates or evokes the designated cosmetics and lacks distinctiveness. By contrast, “雪黃” is a coined expression unrelated to the designated goods and is distinctive.
Read article