Scholarlink

<p><UnorderedList Mark="None"><ItemContent><p><b>1. The non-exhaustive list in Sec. 10(4) of the Trade Marks Act includes numerous acts that are remote in time from the point when a purchase of goods or services or a transaction in relation to goods or services is concluded. For instance, the list includes affixing a sign to goods or their packaging, importing or exporting goods under a sign, using the sign as a company name, using the sign on business papers, using the sign in advertising, and using the sign in improper comparative advertising.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>2. The context in infringement proceedings under Sec. 10(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act is limited to the circumstances characterising the allegedly infringing use, without there being any need to investigate whether another use of the same sign in different circumstances would also be likely to give rise to a likelihood of confusion (here: in the post-sale context, a realistic and representative way in which the average consumer will encounter the sign is by seeing it from head height on footwear being worn by another person).</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>3. Realistic and representative post-sale circumstances can be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the signs at issue are similar and, if so, the degree of similarity.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>4. It is possible in an appropriate case for use of a sign to give rise to a likelihood of confusion as a result of post-sale confusion even if there is no likelihood of confusion at the point of sale.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>5. Not only post-sale confusion affecting or jeopardising the essential function of a trade mark as a guarantee of origin at the point of a subsequent sale or in a subsequent transactional context can amount to an actionable infringement.</b></p></ItemContent><ItemContent><p><b>6. Post-sale confusion must not result in damage at the point of sale or in a transactional context in the sense of influencing consumers when they make a choice with respect to the goods or services in question before there is an actionable infringement.</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

“Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v. Dream Pairs Europe Inc” Decision of the Supreme Court of the UK 24 June 2025 – Case No. [2025] UKSC 25

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月1日

查看全文

摘要

1. The non-exhaustive list in Sec. 10(4) of the Trade Marks Act includes numerous acts that are remote in time from the point when a purchase of goods or services or a transaction in relation to goods or services is concluded. For instance, the list includes affixing a sign to goods or their packaging, importing or exporting goods under a sign, using the sign as a company name, using the sign on business papers, using the sign in advertising, and using the sign in improper comparative advertising.

2. The context in infringement proceedings under Sec. 10(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act is limited to the circumstances characterising the allegedly infringing use, without there being any need to investigate whether another use of the same sign in different circumstances would also be likely to give rise to a likelihood of confusion (here: in the post-sale context, a realistic and representative way in which the average consumer will encounter the sign is by seeing it from head height on footwear being worn by another person).

3. Realistic and representative post-sale circumstances can be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the signs at issue are similar and, if so, the degree of similarity.

4. It is possible in an appropriate case for use of a sign to give rise to a likelihood of confusion as a result of post-sale confusion even if there is no likelihood of confusion at the point of sale.

5. Not only post-sale confusion affecting or jeopardising the essential function of a trade mark as a guarantee of origin at the point of a subsequent sale or in a subsequent transactional context can amount to an actionable infringement.

6. Post-sale confusion must not result in damage at the point of sale or in a transactional context in the sense of influencing consumers when they make a choice with respect to the goods or services in question before there is an actionable infringement.