Scholarlink

<p><OrderedList> <ListItem> <ItemNumber>1.</ItemNumber> <ItemContent> <p>Not every instance in which a protected mark is used can be classified as an infringement of trade mark rights and therefore subject to legal protection under Art. 296(1) and (2) of the Industrial Property Law. For such a risk to be established, the consumers must not only be able to associate the two trade marks with each other, but there also must be a finding of likelihood of confusion as to their origin.</p> </ItemContent> </ListItem> <ListItem> <ItemNumber>2.</ItemNumber> <ItemContent> <p>The mere use of a mark in proceedings before an administrative authority cannot constitute grounds for upholding an infringement claim and would require instead that the mark be used in a manner that distorts its function by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the goods or services or use that infringes its advertising function (here: the contention that an application addressed to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for a permit to market an organic fertiliser under the name “B.” poses the danger of misleading consumers and infringes the word and graphic trade mark of the appellant is too far-reaching).</p> </ItemContent> </ListItem> </OrderedList></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

“Administrative Filings as Use”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月1日

查看全文

摘要

1.

Not every instance in which a protected mark is used can be classified as an infringement of trade mark rights and therefore subject to legal protection under Art. 296(1) and (2) of the Industrial Property Law. For such a risk to be established, the consumers must not only be able to associate the two trade marks with each other, but there also must be a finding of likelihood of confusion as to their origin.

2.

The mere use of a mark in proceedings before an administrative authority cannot constitute grounds for upholding an infringement claim and would require instead that the mark be used in a manner that distorts its function by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the goods or services or use that infringes its advertising function (here: the contention that an application addressed to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for a permit to market an organic fertiliser under the name “B.” poses the danger of misleading consumers and infringes the word and graphic trade mark of the appellant is too far-reaching).