Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contextualisation of the Average Consumer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trademark Law and Similar Fictions

  • 636 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter analyses how European judiciaries in likelihood of confusion disputes as a combination of law and fact contextualise the average consumer to varying market realities. The Court of Justice considers contextualisation to be part of the factual assessment done by the General Court and the national courts, but the court through the average consumer provides a steer for this factual assessment.

The average consumer set out by the Court of Justice serves the important purpose of discounting from the average consumer the highly inattentive and the highly attentive part of the public. The contextualisation of the average consumer is analysed within different product markets (everyday consumer goods and specialised goods) and market places (offline and on the internet).

For General Court case law, this chapter concludes that for everyday consumer goods, the relevant public is most often the average consumer with an average level of attention, and in certain instances with a lower or higher level of attention. Further, that the relevant public may be specialised consumers or professionals with a high level of attention. This chapter concludes that the General Court uses inconsistent terminology for describing and applying the relevant public and its level of attention for comparable products. The UK judiciaries are more outspoken about contextualising the average consumer in line with the EU law approach, where this chapter concludes that generally, the Nordic judiciaries rarely explicitly contextualise the average consumer.

Although the Court of Justice has introduced the “average internet user,” this average consumer is, based on current case law, substantially identical with (offline) the average consumer.

This chapter concludes that the Court of Justice through an “empirical rule” contextualises the average consumer itself by giving its view on how to assess the distinctiveness of certain untraditional marks based on an assumed perception of the average consumer, i.e. not leaving the contextualisation for the General Court and national courts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.

  2. 2.

    Bøggild and Staunstrup have mapped out the average consumer mainly referring to case law of the General Court in relation to different products and purchasers. See Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), p. 100-108. See also the EUIPO TM Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Opposition, ‘Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 3, Relevant Public and Degree of Attention’, and Maeyaert, Paul, and Muyldermans, Jeroen, ‘Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law: A Practical Guide Based on the Case Law in Community Trade Mark Oppositions from 2002 to 2012’, Trademark Reporter, vol. 103/no. 5, (2013), pp. 1032, p. 1043-1051.

  3. 3.

    Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 26. The Court of Justice referred to Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 31.

  4. 4.

    Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, paras 26-27.

  5. 5.

    Specsavers v. Asda, [2012] EWCA Civ 24, para 87. The finding by Kitchin LJ has been referred to by the UK Court of Appeal in Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, para 37, J.W. Spear v. Zynga, [2015] EWCA Civ 290, para 34, Maier v. ASOS, [2015] EWCA Civ 220, para 79 and Comic Enterprises v. Twentieth Century Fox, [2016] EWCA Civ 41, para 33.

  6. 6.

    See e.g. Arnold J in Och-Ziff v. Och Capital, [2010] EWHC 2599 (Ch), para 76 and Supreme Petfoods v. Henry Bell, [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), para 77.

  7. 7.

    O2 v. Hutchison 3G, Case C-533/06, [2008] ECR I-4231, paras 63-67.

  8. 8.

    In Danish: “Det praktisk arbejde med varemærkeretten, fører naturligt frem mod en mere realistisk opfattelse af denne retsdisciplins struktur og metode.” Koktvedgaard, Mogens, ‘Konkurrenceprægede Immaterialretspositioner: Bidrag til Læren om de Lovbestemte Enerettigheder og Deres Forhold til den Almene Konkurrenceret’, (1st edn, Juristforbundet, 1965), p. 160.

  9. 9.

    Shoe Branding v. Adidas, Case C-396/15 P, [2016], para 15.

  10. 10.

    Henkel, Case C-218/01, [2004] ECR I-1725, para 51. The Court of Justice in Shoe Branding v. Adidas, also referred to Longevity Health Products v. OHIM, Case C-84/10 P, [2010], para 29 and Big Line v. Demon, Case C-170/14 P, [2014], para 42. Ultimately those decisions merely refer to Henkel, para 51.

  11. 11.

    Henkel, Case C-218/01, [2004] ECR I-1725, para 52.

  12. 12.

    Libertel, Case C-104/01, [2003] ECR I-3793, para 46 referring to Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1999] ECR I-3819, para 26. See also Alcon v. OHIM, Case C-412/05 P, [2007] ECR I-3569, para 62 referring to SAT.1 v. OHIM, Case C-329/02 P, [2004] ECR I-8317, para 24 and Procter & Gamble v. OHIM, Joined cases C-473/01 P and C-474/01 P, [2004] ECR I-5173, para 62.

  13. 13.

    See Sect. 11.6.

  14. 14.

    See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.4.

  15. 15.

    See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.3–6.4.

  16. 16.

    Alcon v. OHIM, Case T-130/03, [2005] ECR II-3859, para 49, Devinlec Développement Innovation v. OHIM, Case T-147/03, [2006] ECR II-11, paras 62-63, AMS Advanced Medical Services v. OHIM, Case T-425/03, para 51, Vimeo v. OHIM, Case T-96/14, [2015], para 26, Air Products and Chemicals v. OHIM, Joined Cases T-305/06 to T-307/06, para 34, Deepak Rajani v. OHIM, Case T-100/06, [2008], para 58, Harman International Industries v. OHIM (Babara Becker), Case T-212/07, [2008] ECR II-3431, para 26, Wellcome Foundation et al v. OHIM, Joined cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08, [2009], para 49, Gauselmann v. OHIM, Case T-106/09, [2010], para 20, Longevity Health Products v. OHIM, Case T-363/09, [2010], para 23, Three-N-Products Private v. OHIM, Case T-313/10, [2011], para 27, Fetim v. OHIM, Case T-395/12, [2015], para 19, Skype v. OHIM, Case T-184/13, [2015], para 22, Pensa Pharma v. EUIPO, Joined cases T-544/12 and T-546/12, [2015], 69 Gat Microencapsulation v. OHIM, Case T-720/13, [2015], para 31, Azanta v. EUIPO, Case T-49/16, [2017], para 28, Environmental Manufacturing v. EUIPO, Case T-681/15, [2017], para 33, Forest Pharma v. EUIPO, Case T-36/17, [2017], paras 49-50, Sports Division SR v. EUIPO, Case T-139/16, [2017], para 39, Yusuf Pempe v. EUIPO, Case T-271/16, [2017], para 30, Laboratorios Ern v. EUIPO II, Case T-700/16, [2017], para 25 and Dimitrios Mitrakos v. EUIPO, Case T-15/17, [2018], para 24.

  17. 17.

    Gauselmann v. OHIM, Case T-106/09, [2010], para 20, Bial-Portela & C v. OHIM (Isdin), Case T-366/11, [2012], para 18, Globo Media v. EUIPO, Case T-262/16, [2017], para 20, Sports Division SR v. EUIPO, Case T-139/16, [2017], para 38, Claranet Europe v. EUIPO, Case T-129/16, [2017], para 22, Laboratorios Ern v. EUIPO II, Case T-700/16, [2017], para 24, RRTec v. EUIPO, Case T-912/16, [2017], para 31, Deutsche Post v. EUIPO, Case T-118/16, [2018], para 31, Kwang Yang Motor v. EUIPO, Case T-45/17, [2018], para 22. Tillotts Pharma v. EUIPO, Case T-362/16, [2018], para 20 and Deutsche Post v. EUIPO, Case T-537/15, [2018], para 34.

  18. 18.

    Castellblanch v. OHIM, Case T-29/04, [2005] ECR II-5309, para 46, AMS Advanced Medical Services v. OHIM, Case T-425/03, para 51.

  19. 19.

    CareAbout v. OHIM, Case T-356/14, [2015], para 24.

  20. 20.

    TeleTech v. OHIM, Case T-288/03, [2005] ECR II-1767, paras 71 and 78.

  21. 21.

    P.P.TV v. OHIM, Case T-118/07, [2011], para 24 and Messe Friedrichshafen v. EUIPO, Case T-224/16, [2017], para 37.

  22. 22.

    Arctic Cat v. EUIPO, Case T-113/16, [2018], para 21.

  23. 23.

    Vincenzo Fusco v. OHIM, Case T-185/03, [2005] ECR II-715, para 38.

  24. 24.

    See for instance from decisions appealed to the Court of Justice on goods: Saiwa v. OHIM, Case T-344/03, [2006] ECR II-1097, para 29, Harman International Industries v. OHIM (Babara Becker), Case T-212/07, [2008] ECR II-3431, para 26, New Yorker SHK Jeans v. OHIM, Case T-415/09, [2011], para 87, WeserGold Getränkeindustrie, Case T-278/10, [2012], para 24, Bial-Portela & C v. OHIM (Isdin), Case T-366/11, [2012], para 18, Zoo Sport v. OHIM, Case T-455/12, [2013], para 30, Red Bull v. OHIM, Case T-78/13, [2015], para 24, Polo Club v. OHIM, Case T-581/13, [2015], para 34, Eugenia Mocek v. EUIPO, Case T-364/13, [2015], para 22, Pensa Pharma v. EUIPO, Joined cases T-544/12 and T-546/12, [2015], para 69, BH Stores v. EUIPO, Case T-657/13, [2015], para 50, Groupe Léa Nature v. EUIPO, Case T-341/13 RENV, [2017], para 34, BMB v. EUIPO, Case T-695/15, [2017], para 35 and Tetra Pharm (1997) v. EUIPO, Case T-441/16, [2017], paras 35-36. On both good and services or just services: Inex v. OHIM, Case T-153/03, [2006] ECR II-1677, para 49, MOL Magyar Olaj v. OHIM, Case T-367/12, [2014], para 31, Golden Balls v. OHIM (Intra-Presse), Case T-448/11, [2014], para 44, Cartoon Network v. OHIM, Case T-285/12, [2013], para 17, Argo Group v. OHIM, Case T-247/12, [2014], paras 26-27, Junited Autoglas v. OHIM, Case T-297/13, [2014], para 22, Pensa Pharma v. EUIPO, Joined cases T-544/12, Nanu-Nana v. EUIPO, Case, T-89/11, [2015], para 32 and Jordi Nogues v. EUIPO, Case T-350/13, [2017], para 19.

  25. 25.

    Vimeo v. OHIM, Case T-96/14, [2015], para 26 Fetim v. OHIM, Case T-395/12, [2015], para 19, Skype v. OHIM, Case T-184/13, [2015], para 22, Globo Media v. EUIPO, Case T-262/16, [2017], para 24, Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v. EUIPO, Case T-189/16, [2017], para 27, Freddo v. EUIPO, Case T-243/16, [2017], paras 26-28, Claranet Europe v. EUIPO, Case T-129/16, [2017], para 22, Laboratorios Ern v. EUIPO II, Case T-700/16, [2017], para 24, Sun Media v. EUIPO II, Case T-273/16, [2018], para 31, Bernhard Rintisch v. EUIPO, Case T-25/17, [2018], para 78, Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v. EUIPO, Case T-648/16, [2018], para 27 and Gidon Anabi Blanga v. EUIPO, Case T-657/17, [2018], para 21.

  26. 26.

    The chosen terminology is only made as a conceptual comparison to quantitative research, not to indicate that the average consumer as such has to be constructed through quantitative evidence. See Epstein, Lee, and Martin, Andrew D., ‘Quantitative Approaches to Empirical Legal Research’, in Cane, Peter and Kritzer, Herbert M. eds., The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2010), 901, p. 910. Jacoby has held that defining the “universe” (interchangeably with “population”) is obviously of upmost importance. Jacoby, Jacob, ‘Trademark Surveys Volume I: Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Surveys’, (1st edn, American Bar Association, 2013), p. 267. A too broad universe may be “likely to yield very few individuals (…) whose state of mind is relevant.” Ibid, p. 338. The issue with a too narrow universe though, is “that representation can be skewed so the indication of likely confusion, secondary meaning, and so on is biased – sometimes severely in one direction or another.” Ibid, 346.

  27. 27.

    See Sun Media v. EUIPO II, Case T-273/16, [2018], para 31.

  28. 28.

    E.g. on the general public: Dimitrios Mitrakos v. EUIPO, Case T-15/17, [2018], paras 25-27, RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme v. EUIPO, Case T-768/15, [2017], paras 22-28 and Stada Arzneimittel v. EUIPO, Case T-403/16, [2017], para 16. On the public at large: Bernhard Rintisch v. EUIPO, Case T-25/17, [2018], para 78 and Claranet Europe v. EUIPO, Case T-129/16, [2017], para 22.

  29. 29.

    E.g. on the general public: Cotécnica v. EUIPO, Case T-136/17, [2018], para 25, Apax Partners UK v. EUIPO, Case T-209/16, [2017], para 25 and Messe Friedrichshafen v. EUIPO, Case T-224/16, [2017], para 37. On the public at large: Sun Media v. EUIPO I, Case T-204/16, [2018], para 30.

  30. 30.

    Tulliallan Burlington v. EUIPO II, Case T-123/16, [2017], para 38 and Laboratorios Ern v. EUIPO II, Case T-700/16, [2017], paras 23-25. See similar finding on the public at large in Galletas Gullón v. EUIPO, Case T-456/16, [2017], para 86.

  31. 31.

    Cofra Holding v. EUIPO, Case T-233/15, [2017], para 84.

  32. 32.

    Deutsche Post v. EUIPO, Case T-537/15, [2018], para 34.

  33. 33.

    “The term ‘average consumer’ is a legal concept that is used in the sense of the ‘relevant consumer’ or ‘relevant public’. It should not be confused with the ‘general public’ or ‘public at large’, although the Courts sometimes use it in this sense. However, in the context of relative grounds, the term ‘average consumer’ must not be used as a synonym of ‘general public’ as it can refer to both, professional and general public. In this respect, in cases concerning the likelihood of confusion, the Court normally distinguishes between the general public (or public at large), and a professional or specialised public (or business customers), based on the goods and services in question.” See the EUIPO TM Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Opposition, ‘Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 3, Relevant Public and Degree of Attention’, p. 4, and the chapter overall.

  34. 34.

    Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones v. OHIM, Case C-284/13 P, [2014], para 30, J & Joy v. EUIPO, Case T-389/15, [2017], para 21 and Frame v. EUIPO I, Case T-627/15, [2017], para 60.

  35. 35.

    Deepak Rajani v. OHIM, Case T-100/06, [2008], para 58.

  36. 36.

    Devinlec Développement Innovation v. OHIM, Case T-147/03, [2006] ECR II-11, paras 62-63.

  37. 37.

    Red Bull v. OHIM, Case T-78/13, [2015], para 24. See Novartis v. EUIPO II, Case T-238/15, [2017], para 107 and Aldi v. EUIPO, Case T-736/15, [2017], paras 49-50.

  38. 38.

    Three-N-Products Private v. OHIM, Case T-313/10, [2011], para 27, Tayto Group v. EUIPO, Case T-816/14, [2016], para 47 and Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços v. EUIPO, Case T-438/16, [2018].

  39. 39.

    PJ Hungary Szolgáltató v. OHIM, Case T-580/08, [2011] ECR II-2423, para 71.

  40. 40.

    Camper v. OHIM, Case T-43/05, [2006], para 54.

  41. 41.

    Castellblanch v. OHIM, Case T-29/04, [2005] ECR II-5309, para 46.

  42. 42.

    Athinaiki Oikogeniaki v. OHIM, Case T-35/04, [2006] ECR II-785, para 43.

  43. 43.

    Icebreaker v. OHIM, Case T-112/09, [2010], para 22.

  44. 44.

    Shaker v. OHIM, Case T-7/04, [2005] ECR II-2305, para 45.

  45. 45.

    Hammarplast v. OHIM, Case T-499/04, [2006] ECR II-84, para 26.

  46. 46.

    AMS Advanced Medical Services v. OHIM, Case T-425/03, para 51.

  47. 47.

    Sunrider Corp. v. OHIM, Case T-203/02, [2004] ECR II-2811, para 65, Wellcome Foundation et al v. OHIM, Joined cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08, [2009], para 50, Longevity Health Products v. OHIM, Case T-363/09, [2010], para 23, Skype v. OHIM, Case T-184/13, [2015], para 22, Opko Ireland v. EUIPO, Case T-88/16, [2017], paras 71 and 73, Novartis v. EUIPO II, Case T-238/15, [2017], para 53 and Azanta v. EUIPO, Case T-49/16, [2017], para 28 (italics added).

  48. 48.

    Alcon v. OHIM, Case T-130/03, [2005] ECR II-3859, para 49 (italics added).

  49. 49.

    Ruiz-Picasso v. OHIM, Case T-185/02, [2004] ECR II-1739, para 51, Three-N-Products Private v. OHIM, Case T-313/10, [2011], para 27 and Tillotts Pharma v. EUIPO, Case T-632/15, [2017] (italics added).

  50. 50.

    Alecansan v. OHIM, Case T-202/03, [2006], para 36 (italics added).

  51. 51.

    Preparados Alimenticios v. OHIM, Case T-377/10, [2013], para 28.

  52. 52.

    PJ Hungary Szolgáltató v. OHIM, Case T-580/08, [2011] ECR II-2423, para 41.

  53. 53.

    Continental Bulldog Club Deutschland v. OHIM, Case T-383/10, [2013], para 18.

  54. 54.

    Sergio Rossi v. OHIM, Case T-169/03, [2006] ECR II-685, para 49.

  55. 55.

    Apollo Tyres v. OHIM, Case T-109/11, [2013], para 56.

  56. 56.

    Air Products and Chemicals v. OHIM, Joined Cases T-305/06 to T-307/06, para 34.

  57. 57.

    Saint-Gobain Pam v. OHIM, Case T-364/05, [2007] ECR II-757, para 63 (refers to “DIY enthusiasts”), SFC Jardibric v. OHIM, Case T-417/12, [2013], para 51 and RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme v. EUIPO, Case T-768/15, [2017], para 27.

  58. 58.

    Wellcome Foundation et al v. OHIM, Joined cases T-493/07, T-26/08 and T-27/08, [2009], paras 49-50.

  59. 59.

    Sanofi v. OHIM, Case T-493/12, [2014], para 18 and Tillotts Pharma v. EUIPO, Case T-362/16, [2018], para 20.

  60. 60.

    Jacoby, Jacob, ‘Trademark Surveys Volume I: Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Surveys’, (1st edn, American Bar Association, 2013), p. 138-139.

  61. 61.

    Ruiz-Picasso v. OHIM, Case C-361/04 P, [2006] ECR I-643, para 43 (italics added).

  62. 62.

    See Weatherill, Stephen, ‘Who is the ‘Average Consumer’?’, in Weatherill, Stephen and Bernitz, Ulf eds., The Regulation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Under EC Directive 2005/29 (1st edn, Oxford, Hart, 2007), 115, p. 123.

  63. 63.

    In Norwegian: “Han må leve sig inn i all de forhold som møter varemerket i livet, og mobilisere all sin intuitive evne og innsikt i kundepsykologien for å komme til et riktig og rimelig resultat.” and “mange dommere er for stivbente og fantasiløse til å løse den opgave som varemerkeretten stiller dem.” Knoph, Ragnar, ‘Åndsretten’, (1st edn, Nationaltrykkeriet, 1936), p. 455-456.

  64. 64.

    Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v. Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97, [1998] ECR I-3819, para 26 referring to Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 31.

  65. 65.

    See Marca Mode v. Adidas, Case C-425/98, [2000] ECR I-4861, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 30 (italics added) referring to his opinion in CNL-SUCA v. HAG, Case C-10/89, [1990] ECR I-3711, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 36.

  66. 66.

    CNL-SUCA v. HAG, Case C-10/89, [1990] ECR I-3711, (opinion of AG Jacobs), para 36.

  67. 67.

    Reed Executive v. Reed Business Information, [2004] EWCA Civ 159, para 78.

  68. 68.

    Ibid, para 82. The finding is also referred to by Lewison LJ in Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, para 33.

  69. 69.

    Enterprise v. Europcar, [2015] EWHC 17 (Ch), para 132 (italics added). This was first stated by Arnold J in Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch), para 209.

  70. 70.

    According to Kahnemann, the system has been offered by the psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West. More broadly on the system, see Kahneman, Daniel, ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’, (1st edn, Penguin, 2011), p. 19-24, Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2008), p. 21-24 and Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2014), p. 26-34.

  71. 71.

    Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2014), p. 26-27.

  72. 72.

    Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2008), p. 22.

  73. 73.

    Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2014), p. 26-27.

  74. 74.

    Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2008), p. 22.

  75. 75.

    Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Why Nudge? The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2014), p. 26. See also Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness’, (1st edn, Yale University Press, 2008), p. 24.

  76. 76.

    Atomic Energy v. Areva, [2009] FC 980, para 28 (italics added). Corbin has elaborated on these cases in an article on the Canadian version of the average consumer. Corbin, Ruth M., ‘The Moron in a Hurry – a Creature of Law Or Science?’, in Archibald, Todd L. and Echlin, Randall Scott eds., Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2015 (1st edn, Carswell, 2015), 43, p. 43-46. See also Beebe, Barton, ‘Trademark Law: An Open-Source Casebook’, Trademark Infringement (V3 edn, 2016), p. 48.

  77. 77.

    In Danish: “Reklamepsykologien” and “visse Modifikationer af den konstruktive Gennemsnitsnorm” (italics added). Andreasen, Hardy, ‘Varemærkeretten i Konkurrenceretlig Belysning. En Retssammenlignende Analyse Af Varemærkerettens Grundbegreber Og En Fremstilling Af Ejendomstetten Til Varemærker’, (1st edn, Ejnar Munksgaard, 1948), p. 298, and p. 298-301.

  78. 78.

    In Norwegian: “Til en viss grad dreier det hele seg egentlig om gjetninger om kundepsykolgi.” Lassen, Birger Stuevold, ‘Oversikt Over Norsk Varemerkerett’, (2nd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 1997), p. 265.

  79. 79.

    The sentence is based on the explanations of the adjectives forming the characteristics of the average consumer as found in the Oxford University Press online English/English dictionary: “well-informed” is explained as “having or showing much knowledge about a wide range of subjects, or about one particular subject;” “observant” as for instance, “on guard;” “circumspect” as “wary and unwilling to take risks;” and “reasonably” as for instance, “somewhat.”

  80. 80.

    See Chap. 7, Sect. 7.4 and Chap. 8, Sect. 8.7.

  81. 81.

    Reed Executive v. Reed Business Information, [2004] EWCA Civ 159, para 78 (italics added).

  82. 82.

    Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 52.

  83. 83.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, para 113.

  84. 84.

    Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 59-62. See also Laustsen, Rasmus D., ‘An Economic Analysis of EU Trademark Law; the Role of the Average Consumer in Trademark Infringement between Two Confusingly Similar Trademarks’, in Lyngsie, Jacob, Mortensen, Bent O. G. and Østergaard, Kim eds., Rets- og Kontraktøkonomi: Law & Economics an Anthology (Djøf Publishing, 2016), 37, p. 56-57.

  85. 85.

    See Chap. 8.

  86. 86.

    Gut Springenheide and Tusky, Case C-210/96, [1998] ECR I-4657, para 37 (italics added). On the role of evidence, see also Chap. 1, Sect. 1.5.4.

  87. 87.

    Shoe Branding v. Adidas, Case C-396/15 P, [2016], para 28.

  88. 88.

    Ibid, para 30 (italics added).

  89. 89.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch), para 209. Later, this was confirmed by the UK Court of Appeal in Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, para 124.

  90. 90.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, respectively paras 124 and 128.

  91. 91.

    Understood as “the sum of the measurements divided by the number of subjects.” Agresti, Alan, and Barbara Finlay, ‘Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences’, (3rd edn, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1999), p. 45.

  92. 92.

    The “empirical rule” dictates that 68 % of all measurements on a bell-shaped distribution fall between -/+ one standard deviation from the sample mean. Ibid, p. 56-61.

  93. 93.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, paras 128-129.

  94. 94.

    The quote continues: “But what a survey does not, I think, tell you is: for whom will the average voter vote? In cases where acquired distinctiveness of a mark is in issue a survey may accurately identify that proportion of the relevant public which recognises the mark as a badge of trade origin. It will then be for the fact finding tribunal, with the aid of such a survey, to decide whether a significant proportion of the relevant public identify goods as originating from a particular undertaking because of the mark.” Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, para 35.

  95. 95.

    As a curiosity, Mellor reasoned during the presentation that Lewison LJ’s reference to election surveys might have reflected that the hearing in Interflora EWCA I took place 7 November 2012, one day after the election of Barack Obama in the US general election. If that is the reason for the reference to election surveys, it is doubtful that it would have been made, had the hearing taken place 8 November 2016, one day after Donald Trump was elected president in the US general election. To say the least, the 2016 US election exposed significant flaws in expert surveys. The presentation, where the author of this book was present, can be found at: Mellor, James, presentation under the heading ‘The average consumer generally’ as part of a conference under the heading ‘The Average Consumer in Trade Mark Law and Passing Off’ held at UCL in London 25 February 2015, at 3:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqTC_-beZxk (last visited 26 May 2019), see from 8:30 onwards.

  96. 96.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, para 128.

  97. 97.

    Ibid, para 129.

  98. 98.

    Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 65. When Mellor et al finish their chapter on the average consumer, they firmly stress that even if survey evidence could be of some relevance when establishing the average consumer, then “[u]ltimately, it is pointless to strive for precision where, once a court has directed itself as to the correct legal concept, the assessment is necessarily one of impression and is “broad brush”.” Ibid, p. 65-66.

  99. 99.

    That “word” is in plural must be a typo by the court.

  100. 100.

    Hearst v. AVELA, [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch), para 60 (italics added). See also Arnold J referring to this in Supreme Petfoods v. Henry Bell, [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), para 50.

  101. 101.

    Wadlow, Christopher, ‘The Law of Passing-Off: Unfair Competition by Misrepresentation’, (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2016), p. 570. On this point, Wadlow sees a difference between the UK law of passing off and trademark law, since the former takes a broader approach to allowing the substantiation of consumer confusion e.g. through survey evidence. Ibid.

  102. 102.

    Søtt + Salt v. Pascal, HR-2008-1686-A, [2008], NOSC.

  103. 103.

    In Norwegian: “kreves at man må regne med at en ikke ubetydelig del av omsetningskretsen vil bli villedet.” See further on the legislative requirement of the NO TM Act 1961 in Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3.2.3.

  104. 104.

    Pangea v. Klagenemnda, LB-2014-52230, [2015], NOCA, p. 7.

  105. 105.

    In Norwegian: “En ikke ubetydelig del må her oppfattes relativt: om det absolutte tall på kjøpere e.l. som man må regne med vil ta feil er stort eller lite, bør normalt ikke spille noen rolle. Helt ut kan dette likevel ikke gjelde. At man må regne med at én kjøper vil kunne ta feil, kan ikke være nok, selv om varen er boreplattformer. Hvis man på den annen side må regne med at tusener at kjøpere vil kunne forveksle varemerkene, må det være tilstrekkelig til å konstatere forvekselbarhet, selv om det dreier seg om en vare som f.eks. tannpasta, med en omsetningskrets som må regnes i millioner som alle foretar jevnlige kjøp.” Pangea v. Klagenemnda, LB-2014-52230, [2015], NOCA, p. 7 referring to Lassen, Birger Stuevold, ‘Oversikt Over Norsk Varemerkerett’, (2nd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 1997), p. 267 (italics added). In an abbreviated version, this quotation has been repeated in the newer version of the book, see Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 320.

  106. 106.

    The NO Supreme Court did not find sufficient similarity between the services and therefore, the court did not assess the perception of the relevant public. Pangea v. Klagenemnda, HR-2016-01993-A, [2016], NOSC, para 74. See also Chap. 10, Sect. 10.3.2.3.

  107. 107.

    In Swedish: “Frågan om förväxlingsrisk anses vara en fråga av normativ karaktär, d.v.s. en rättsfråga. Följden därav blir att visad faktisk förväxling tillmäts mindre betydelse men att bevisning som syftar till att styrka sådan förväxling (t.ex. förväxlingsstudier eller andra marknadsundersökningar) kan verka indikativt i målet.” Hela Pharma v. Cederroth, T 3341-09, [2010], SECA, p. 4-5 (italics added).

  108. 108.

    In Danish: “Dermed er dog ikke sagt, at man ikke kan inddrage forbrugerkredsens antagelige normalreaktion og som led i vurderingen heri lægge vægt på markedsundersøgelser” and “[d]et kan i sådanne tilfælde være vanskeligt at få et klart resultat.” “De danske domstole har nok til dels af denne grund (og på grund af vanens magt) traditionelt været tilbageholdende med at lægge vægt på undersøgelser, men dette er måske ved at ændre sig.” Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (5th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2018), p. 532, Interestingly, Schovsbo’s reference to the average as a legal standard (or a “legal fiction” – a term he also uses) only appears in the 2018 edition of the book, where he also includes an elaborative section on the average consumer. Part of these amendments could be caused this book on the average consumer referred to be Schovsbo (in the PhD edition from 2017). See ibid, p. 475 and p. 532. Compare with Schovsbo’s previous findings in the 2015 edition of the book. Schovsbo, Jens, Rosenmeier, Morten and Petersen, Clement Salung, ‘Immaterialret: Ophavsret, Patentret, Brugsmodelret, Designret, Varemærkeret’, (4th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2015), p. 612.

  109. 109.

    In Danish: “baseres på retspraksis, ikke på mere eller mindre dybtgående markedsanalyser.” Koktvedgaard, Mogens, ‘Konkurrenceprægede Immaterialretspositioner: Bidrag til Læren om de Lovbestemte Enerettigheder og Deres Forhold til den Almene Konkurrenceret’, (1st edn, Juristforbundet, 1965), p. 178.

  110. 110.

    In Danish: “normalreaktionen hos denne aftagerkreds,” “står overfor forhold, der i almindelighed ikke lader sig dokumentere i retssalen” and “deres eget skøn.” Ibid, p. 177.

  111. 111.

    PUMA v. Coop Danmark, U.2011.3433, [2013], (DKSC). The decision was a “classical” Puma dispute where Coop had launched a shoe with a side application that somewhat resembled that of Puma’s shoe. As opposed to Sabel, this decision was an infringement dispute. To decide likelihood of confusion two market surveys had been made, one with pre-made answers and the other without. Ibid, p. 3434. Puma claimed that there was likelihood of confusion, e.g. on the ground of the latter market survey showing that 10 % when shown Coop’s shoe associated the shoe with Puma. As the DK MCH Court, the DK Supreme Court found there to be differences between the side applications of the shoes. The DK Supreme Court concluded that based on an “overall assessment and with support of the market surveys made, the court accepts that the application of the Coop shoe is so essentially different from Puma’s application that there is no risk of confusion (…).” Ibid, p. 3438. In Danish: “Ud fra en helhedsvurdering og med støtte i de foretagne markedsundersøgelser tiltræder Højesteret, at applikationen på Coop-skoen adskiller sig så væsentligt fra Pumas form-strip, at der ikke er risiko for forveksling (…).”

  112. 112.

    Recital 18 of the UCPD. See also Madsen, Palle Bo, ‘Markedsret Del 2: Markedsføringsret og Konkurrenceværn’, (6th edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2015), p. 58-59.

  113. 113.

    On this legislative requirement, see Chap. 9, Sect. 9.3.1.1.

  114. 114.

    On Nice Classification, see Chap. 3, Sect. 3.5.2.

  115. 115.

    Hence, it is stipulated in the TM Regulation and TM Directive that “(…) the sign is identical with, or similar to, the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services which are identical with, or similar to, the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered,”. Cf. art. 9(2) of the TM Regulation and art. 10(2) of the TM Directive. (italics added).

  116. 116.

    On this finding in Lloyd (italics added), see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.

  117. 117.

    On this finding in Sabel, see Chap. 10, Sect. 10.2.2.

  118. 118.

    Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 23. See also the appeal decision Alcon v. OHIM, Case C-412/05 P, [2007] ECR I-3569, para 72.

  119. 119.

    Sunrider v. OHIM, C-416/04 P, [2006] ECR I-4237, para 85.

  120. 120.

    Ibid, paras 49-50 and 88.

  121. 121.

    See the EUIPO TM Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Opposition, ‘Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services’. See also Bøggild, Frank, and Staunstrup, Kolja, ‘EU-Varemærkeret’, (1st edn, Karnov Group, 2015), p. 253-273.

  122. 122.

    Two recent examples of this are Novartis v. EUIPO I, Case T-214/15, [2017], para 55 and Kwang Yang Motor v. EUIPO, Case T-45/17, [2018], para 33.

  123. 123.

    See the EUIPO TM Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Opposition, ‘Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services’, p. 36. Here, the EUIPO has listed the following as “[g]enerally] strong factors” when comparing the products: their “[u]sual origin,” “[p]urpose,” “[n]ature,” “[c]omplementarity,” and if they are “[i]n competition.” Besides the relevant public, the EUIPO also considers the following as less important factors: “[m]ethod of use,” and “[d]istribution channels.”

  124. 124.

    A recent example of this is Novartis v. EUIPO I, Case T-214/15, [2017], para 55.

  125. 125.

    Although not directly mentioned by the Court of Justice in Canon, the EUIPO finds some ground for the “usual origin” factor in Canon. See the EUIPO TM Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Opposition, ‘Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services’, p. 32 and Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507, para 29.

  126. 126.

    See the EUIPO TM Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Opposition, ‘Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services’, p. 32. See also on this factor, Davis, Richard, St Quintin, Thomas and Tritton, Guy, ‘Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe’, (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 372-373.

  127. 127.

    Emcur Gesundheitsmitte v. EUIPO, Case T-165/17, [2018], paras 55 and 61-63 (appeal to the Court of Justice in progress, see Case C-533/18 P) and Banca Monte and Wise Dialog Bank v. EUIPO, Case T-83/16, [2017], paras 62-64. Upon appeal, the Court of Justice refrained that the assessment of the similarity of the products is an appraisal left for the General Court, and hence did go further into this matter. Banca Monte and Wise Dialog Bank v. EUIPO, Case C-684/17 P, [2018], paras 21-25.

  128. 128.

    Davis, Richard, St Quintin, Thomas and Tritton, Guy, ‘Tritton on Intellectual Property in Europe’, (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 373. It is not possible to verify the source referred by Tritton et al as ground for this finding, ibid, footnote 367.

  129. 129.

    Indo Internacional v. OHIM, Case T-260/08, [2012], para 23. The senior mark was registered for certain “optician’s services” (ibid, para 6), and junior applied for registration of its mark for certain optical services (ibid, para 3). The General Court also referred to Apple Computer v. OHIM, Case T-328/05, [2008], para 23.

  130. 130.

    Indo Internacional v. OHIM, Case T-260/08, [2012], para 24. Here the General Court referred to MeDiTA v. OHIM, Case T-270/09, [2010], para 28 that refer to Apple Computer v. OHIM, Case T-328/05, [2008], para 23.

  131. 131.

    See the EUIPO TM Guidelines, Part C, Section 2, Opposition, ‘Double Identity and Likelihood of Confusion, Chapter 2, Comparison of Goods and Services’, p. 5.

  132. 132.

    Bishop, Simon, and Mike Walker, ‘The Economics of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Application and Measurement’, (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010), p. 150 and Jacoby, Jacob, ‘Trademark Surveys Volume I: Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Surveys’, (1st edn, American Bar Association, 2013), p. 137-138.

  133. 133.

    Jacoby, Jacob, ‘Trademark Surveys Volume I: Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Surveys’, (1st edn, American Bar Association, 2013), p. 138.

  134. 134.

    Jehoram, Tobias Cohen, van Nispen, Constant, and Huydecoper, Tony, ‘European Trademark Law: Community Trademark Law and Harmonized National Trademark Law’, (1st edn, Kluwer Law International, 2010), p. 288.

  135. 135.

    A brand is something more than a merely the trademark as found by Advocate General Colomer in Arsenal v. Reed, stating “[t]he trade mark acquires a life of its own, making a statement, as I have suggested, about quality, reputation and even, in certain cases, a way of seeing life.” Arsenal v. Reed, Case C-206/01, [2002] ECR I-10273, (opinion of AG Colomer), para 46. See also L’Oréal v. Bellure, Case C-487/07, [2009] ECR I-5185, (opinion of AG Mengozzi), para 52.

  136. 136.

    Jacoby, Jacob, ‘Trademark Surveys Volume I: Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Surveys’, (1st edn, American Bar Association, 2013), p. 138.

  137. 137.

    Shoe Branding relating to sports shoes and clothing (Nice Agreement class 25). Shoe Branding v. Adidas, Case C-396/15 P, [2016], paras 13-16.

  138. 138.

    Longevity Health Products v. OHIM relating to certain pharmaceuticals and other preparations for medical or veterinary purposes (Nice Agreement class 5). Longevity Health Products v. OHIM, Case C-81/11 P, [2012], paras 26-27.

  139. 139.

    Adidas v. OHIM, Case T-145/14, [2015], para 33 (italics added) (for the appeal decision, Shoe Branding v. Adidas, Case C-396/15 P, [2016], see e.g. Chap. 10, Sect. 10.2.3). See also Cofra Holding v. EUIPO, Case T-233/15, [2017], para 84, Enoitalia v. EUIPO, Case T-707/16, [2018], paras 22-26, Republic of Cyprus v. EUIPO II, Case T-847/16, [2018], para 24 and Republic of Cyprus v. EUIPO I, Case T-825/16, [2018], para 26.

  140. 140.

    Specifically, the present case related to the average Polish consumer. LR Health & Beauty Systems v. OHIM, Case T-202/14, [2016], para 23. It has to be borne in mind though, that the General Court is occasionally much freer to consider in detail the facts of the initial dispute, and is never considering trademark infringement. Nonetheless, the commonly used “reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect” phrase is adopted, and it is generally instructive in the discussion. See in more depths Chap. 11.

  141. 141.

    This account of “everyday consumer goods” was not disputed by the General Court. LR Health & Beauty Systems v. OHIM, Case T-202/14, [2016], para 11. Although not using the term “every day consumer goods,” the General Court has recently stated that “[a]lthough it does not take place on a daily basis, the purchase of household or kitchen utensils is nevertheless more commonplace, easier and cheaper than the purchase of items of furniture.” By this statement, the General Court has indicated that the purchase frequency may affect the level of attention of the average consumer. The Cookware Company v. OHIM, Case T-535/14, [2016], para 29. See also the impact of brand loyalty below in footnote 183.

  142. 142.

    Adidas v. OHIM (Shoe Branding), Case T-145/14, [2015], para 33 (italics added). In this paragraph, reference was made by the General Court to OHIM v. Shaker, Case C-334/05 P, [2007] ECR I-4529, para 35. As addressed in Chap. 9, OHIM v. Shaker on point of law of the average consumer added nothing new to the findings in Sabel and Lloyd. See Chap. 10, Sect. 10.2.3.

  143. 143.

    Yusuf Pempe v. EUIPO, Case T-271/16, [2017], para 30 (italics added). “Mass circulation consumer goods” are assumed to be the same as everyday consumer goods.

  144. 144.

    Polo Club v. OHIM, Case T-581/13, [2015], para 34 (italics added). See also N & C Franchise v. EUIPO, Case T-792/16, [2017], para 26.

  145. 145.

    The Smiley Company v. OHIM, Case T-139/08, ECR II-3535, para 19 (italics added) referred to by the General Court in Polo Club v. OHIM, Case T-581/13, [2015], para 34. The former decision relates to lack of distinctive character, but the statement on the attention of the average consumer is generally applicable. See also more recently on likelihood of confusion N & C Franchise v. EUIPO, Case T-792/16, [2017], para 26.

  146. 146.

    Ravensburger v. OHIM, Case T-243/08, [2010], para 24.

  147. 147.

    Lancôme v. OHIM I, Case T-466/08, [2011] ECR II-1831, para 49. The General Court seemed to infer that it is given what the level of attention for everyday consumer goods is, if not high. The court itself has stated, though, that if not high, the level of attention for those goods may be average or low.

  148. 148.

    Olive Line v. OHIM, Case T-273/10, [2012], para 40. In this paragraph, the General Court referred to Bang & Olufsen v. OHIM where the court stated that “[a]s regards everyday consumer goods, the average consumer’s level of attention is less than that paid to durable goods or, simply, goods of a higher value or for more exceptional use.” Bang & Olufsen v. OHIM, Case T-460/05, [2007] ECR II-4207, para 33. This decision is on the absolute ground for refusal of registration, but the finding generally applies. See also Tetra Pharm v. EUIPO, Case T-441/16, [2017], para 33.

  149. 149.

    Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v. EUIPO, Case T-189/16, [2017], para 38. Reference was also made to Dorma v. OHIM, Case T-500/10, [2011], para 64 that referred to Bang & Olufsen v. OHIM, set out in the previous footnote.

  150. 150.

    Saiwa v. OHIM, Case T-344/03, [2006] ECR II-1097, paras 29 (italics added).

  151. 151.

    Organismos Kypriakis v. OHIM, Case T-534/10, para 22 (italics added). Here reference is made to “everyday foodstuffs.” The term “everyday food products” has also been used by the General Court. See Oriental Kitchen v. OHIM, Case T-286/02, [2003] ECR II-4953, para 28.

  152. 152.

    Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik v. OHIM, Case T-247/14, [2016], para 79 (class 29 of the Nice Agreement) (appeal before the Court of Justice Case C-182/16 P).

  153. 153.

    Athinaiki Oikogeniaki v. OHIM, Case T-35/04, [2006] ECR II-785, para 42.

  154. 154.

    Saiwa v. OHIM, Case T-344/03, [2006] ECR II-1097, paras 29-30.

  155. 155.

    Athinaiki Oikogeniaki v. OHIM, Case T-35/04, [2006] ECR II-785, para 42.

  156. 156.

    Masottina v. OHIM, Case T-393/11, [2013], para 23.

  157. 157.

    Ibid and Shaker v. OHIM, Case T-7/04 [2008] ECR II-2305, para 32.

  158. 158.

    Bitburger Brauerei v. OHIM, Joined Cases T-350/04 to T-352/04, [2006] ECR II-4255, paras 43, 68 and 69.

  159. 159.

    Tetra Pharm v. EUIPO, Case T-441/16, [2017], paras 33-35.

  160. 160.

    Credentis v. OHIM, Case T-53/15, [2016], para 20 and LR Health & Beauty Systems v. OHIM, Case T-202/14, [2016], para 23 (both class 3 of the Nice Agreement).

  161. 161.

    L & D v. OHIM, Case T-168/04, [2006] ECR II-2699.

  162. 162.

    Tetra Pharm (1997) v. EUIPO, Case T-441/16, [2017], paras 33-36.

  163. 163.

    Lancôme v. OHIM I, Case T-466/08, [2011] ECR II-1831, para 49 and Lancôme v. OHIM II, Case T-204/10, [2012], para 24 (class 3 of the Nice Agreement).

  164. 164.

    J & Joy v. EUIPO, Case T-389/15, [2017], paras 22 and 29.

  165. 165.

    Wolverine International v. OHIM, Case T-642/13, [2015], paras 45-46.

  166. 166.

    Hence, “the Board of Appeal’s finding that those differences will not pass unnoticed by the consumer who pays attention to the details of sports shoes is, as the applicant claims, at odds with the fact that the consumer of those products does not demonstrate a high degree of attention.” Adidas v. OHIM, Case T-145/14, [2015], para 32.

  167. 167.

    The Cookware Company v. OHIM, Case T-535/14, [2016], para 29.

  168. 168.

    Ravensburger v. OHIM, Case T-243/08, [2010], para 24.

  169. 169.

    Tulliallan Burlington v. EUIPO I, Case T-121/16, [2017], para 38 (italics added).

  170. 170.

    This includes such services as the provision of hygienic care for humans (Credentis v. OHIM, Case T-53/15, [2016], para 20, (class 44 of the Nice Agreement.)) and of certain food and drink services in certain public outlets, where the relevant public’s level of attention is average. Andrea Giuntoli v. OHIM, Case T-256/14, [2015], para 24 (class 43 of the Nice Agreement).

  171. 171.

    Freddo v. EUIPO, Case T-243/16, [2017], para 26.

  172. 172.

    X Technology Swiss, Case T-547/08, [2010], ECR II-2409, paras 43-45.

  173. 173.

    Andrea Giuntoli v. OHIM, Case T-256/14, [2015], para 24.

  174. 174.

    Ibid.

  175. 175.

    X Technology Swiss, Case T-547/08, [2010], ECR II-2409, paras 43-45.

  176. 176.

    August Storck v. OHIM, Case T-366/14, [2015], para 20. This decision is on the absolute grounds for refusal of registration, but the finding is generally applicable.

  177. 177.

    Moscow Confectionery Factory v. EUIPO, Case T-795/16, [2018], paras 19-21.

  178. 178.

    Mederer v. OHIM, Case T-210/14, [2016], para 28, referring to Bimbo v. OHIM, Case T-569/10, [2012], para 99. See also Andrea Giuntoli v. OHIM, Case T-256/14, [2015], para 24 (both Nice class 30).

  179. 179.

    Bimbo v. OHIM, Case T-569/10, [2012], para 99.

  180. 180.

    Wolverine International v. OHIM, Case T-642/13, [2015], paras 45-46. See also Masottina v. OHIM, Case T-393/11, [2013], para 23 and Nike v. OHIM, Case T-356/10, [2011], para 23.

  181. 181.

    New Look v. OHIM, Joined cases T-117/03 to T-119/03 and T-171/03, [2004] ECR II-3471, para 43. See also Phildar v. OHIM, Case T-99/06, [2009], para 84, Václav Hrbek v. OHIM, Case T-434/10, [2011], para 29 and Wolverine International v. OHIM, Case T-642/13, [2015], para 46.

  182. 182.

    See by analogy, Polo Club v. OHIM, Case T-581/13, [2015], paras 34 and 79.

  183. 183.

    In a registration case, the applicant claimed that consumers of household or kitchen utensils displayed a particular high degree of brand loyalty. Although this was rejected by the General Court as matter of fact, the court did not reject that the brand loyalty may affect the level of attention of the average consumer. As opposed to e.g. clothing and shoes, though, the General Court did not explicitly refer to household or kitchen utensils as everyday consumer goods. However, they have a similar effect on the level of attention of the relevant public as for everyday consumer goods, since the sale of these goods were partly “intended both for the general public — the level of attention of which is average.” The Cookware Company v. OHIM, Case T-535/14, [2016], para 26. See also UAB Keturi kambariai v. EUIPO, Case T-202/16, [2017], paras 79 and 90.

  184. 184.

    See on “food for babies” Hipp & Co. v. OHIM, Case T-221/06, [2009], para 40.

  185. 185.

    Moscow Confectionery Factory v. EUIPO, Case T-795/16, [2018], para 19 (italics added).

  186. 186.

    Ibid, para 21.

  187. 187.

    Class 25 of the Nice Agreement.

  188. 188.

    Zoo Sport v. OHIM, Case T-455/12, [2013], para 17.

  189. 189.

    Ibid, para 31.

  190. 190.

    Ibid, para 32.

  191. 191.

    Ibid, para 33.

  192. 192.

    Ibid, paras 32-33.

  193. 193.

    Ibid, para 35.

  194. 194.

    Ibid, para 36.

  195. 195.

    Ibid, para 39.

  196. 196.

    Ibid, para 40.

  197. 197.

    Hence, in marketing literature it is also claimed that brands for sportswear and clothing “have been demonstrated to have important sign value for consumers regardless of age, gender or class.” This citation confirms these goods to be outliers in the everyday consumer goods category. Hogg, Margaret K., Bruce, Margaret and Hill, Alexander J., ‘Fashion Brand Preferences among Young Consumers’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, vol. 26/no. 8, (1998), pp. 293, p. 294.

  198. 198.

    This follows from Lloyd onwards. See Chap. 10, Sect. 10.2.

  199. 199.

    Dimitrios Mitrakos v. EUIPO, Case T-15/17, [2018], para 26 (italics added).

  200. 200.

    Ibid, para 27.

  201. 201.

    For a similar finding on specialised good, see the below Sect. 11.4.1.2.

  202. 202.

    “The relevant public” covers both young people (average consumer) interested in the relevant goods and professionals buying the relevant goods in a professional context. See also, Gigabyte Technology v. OHIM, Case T-451/11, [2013], para 38 related to certain specialised IT services referring to higher level of attention among specialised users. See also recently Arctic Cat v. EUIPO, where the applicant and EUIPO Board of Appeal found that “power sport vehicle-specific clothing” where “specialised goods”, and that the “specialist consumers” involved in “power vehicle sports or, at the least, persons involved in such sports (…) have a higher than average level of attention”. The General Court did not agree on the factual assessment based on this principle, but did not did dispute the principle as such principle. Arctic Cat v. EUIPO, Case T-113/16, [2018], paras 20-28.

  203. 203.

    Inter-Ikea Systems v. OHIM, Case T-112/06, [2008], para 37. The court referred to Devinlec Développement Innovation v. OHIM, Case T-147/03, [2006] ECR II-11, para 63.

  204. 204.

    Václav Hrbek v. OHIM, Case T-434/10, [2011], paras 26 and 31.

  205. 205.

    Ibid, para 30.

  206. 206.

    Ibid, para 28.

  207. 207.

    Hipp & Co. v. OHIM, Case T-221/06, [2009], para 40.

  208. 208.

    See above, Sect. 11.4.1.1.

  209. 209.

    Gauselmann v. OHIM, Case T-106/09, [2010], para 20. See also Eliza Corporation v. OHIM, Case T-130/09, [2010], para 25.

  210. 210.

    Fetim v. OHIM, Case T-395/12, [2015], para 21.

  211. 211.

    See Saint-Gobain v. OHIM, Case T-364/05, [2007] ECR II-757, para 63 and SFC Jardibric v. OHIM, Case T-417/12, [2013], para 51.

  212. 212.

    Argo Group, Case T-247/12, [2014], para 28.

  213. 213.

    Ibid, para 29, The Cookware Company v. OHIM, Case T-535/14, [2016], para 27 and Ergo Versicherungsgruppe v. OHIM, Case T-220/09, [2011], paras 21-22.

  214. 214.

    Alcon v. OHIM, Case C-412/05 P, [2007] ECR I-3569, para 52.

  215. 215.

    Ibid, para 57.

  216. 216.

    Ibid, para 58.

  217. 217.

    Ibid, paras 59-61.

  218. 218.

    Ferring v. OHIM, Case T-169/14, [2015], paras 30-31. See also Madaus v. OHIM, Case T-202/04, [2006] ECR II-01115, para 33, Mundipharma v. OHIM, Case T-256/04, [2007] ECR II-449, paras 44-47, Aventis Pharma and Nycomed GmbH, Case T-95/07 [2008], paras 27 and 29, Novartis v. OHIM, Case T-331/09, [2010] ECR II-5967, paras 28-29, Market Watch Franchise & Consulting v. OHIM, Case T-201/08, [2010], para 28, Azanta v. EUIPO, Case T-49/16, [2017], paras 23-28, Opko Ireland v. EUIPO, Case T-88/16, [2017], para 72, Tillotts Pharma v. EUIPO and Case T-632/15, [2017], paras 36-38.

  219. 219.

    Novartis v. EUIPO II, Case T-238/15, [2017], paras 69-71.

  220. 220.

    Ibid, para 66. Due to the findings by the court referred to in the foregoing footnote and the court’s approach to goods affecting the health of the average consumer or someone close to it, this statement is generally applicable.

  221. 221.

    Alcon v. OHIM/Robert Winzer Pharma, Case C-192/03 P, [2004] ECR I-8993, para 30. Although this decision turned on if a senior mark had become generic, the findings of the Court of Justice were referred by the Court of Justice in Alcon v. OHIM on likelihood of confusion. See Alcon v. OHIM, Case C-412/05 P, [2007] ECR I-3569, paras 48 and 66.

  222. 222.

    Ferring v. OHIM, Case T-169/14, [2015], para 38.

  223. 223.

    Ibid, para 35.

  224. 224.

    See above Sect. 11.4.1.1.

  225. 225.

    Novartis v. EUIPO II, Case T-238/15, [2017], para 55 (italics added).

  226. 226.

    Ibid, paras 60-61.

  227. 227.

    For a similar finding on specialised good, see the below Sect. 11.4.1.2.

  228. 228.

    For instance, a person died from a pharmacist dispensing the stronger PLENDIL (blood pressure medicine) instead of what the doctor had written ISORDIL (angina pain medicine). This example merely illustrates the danger of confusing pharmaceuticals. Arguably, there is some similarity between the names of the medicines, but the actual confusion was caused by the pharmacist misinterpreting the doctor’s handwritten prescription. On this case, see Glabman, Maureen, ‘Death by Handwriting’, Trustee, vol. 59/9 (2005), pp. 29.

  229. 229.

    Madaus v. OHIM, Case T-202/04, [2006] ECR II-1115, para 31 (italics added) and subsequently Astex Therapeutics v. OHIM, Case T-48/06, [2008], para 69.

  230. 230.

    Madaus v. OHIM, Case T-202/04, [2006] ECR II-1115, para 32. On the objectiveness of the global appreciation test, see also Mellor, James, David Llewelyn, Moody-Stuart, Thomas, et al, ‘Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names’, (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018), p. 425-426.

  231. 231.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, para 50.

  232. 232.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, para 115, J.W. Spear v. Zynga, [2015] EWCA Civ 290, para 36(iii) and Comic Enterprises v. Twentieth Century Fox, [2016] EWCA Civ 41, para 34(iii).

  233. 233.

    Jack Wills v. House of Fraser, [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch), Thomas Pink v. Viktoria’s Secret, [2014] EWHC 2631 and Supreme Petfoods v. Henry Bell, [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch). Arnold J decided the first and last of the cases. Arnold J was also the one deciding the case in Interflora EWHC where he significantly contributed to interpreting the likelihood of confusion standard and the average consumer. See Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch), paras 194-224.

  234. 234.

    Jack Wills v. House of Fraser, [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch), para 85 (italics added).

  235. 235.

    Ibid, para 103.

  236. 236.

    Thomas Pink v. Viktoria’s Secret, [2014] EWHC 2631, para 117.

  237. 237.

    Ibid, para 117(iii).

  238. 238.

    Ibid, paras 169 and 182.

  239. 239.

    Supreme Petfoods v. Henry Bell, [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), para 53.

  240. 240.

    Ibid, para 54.

  241. 241.

    Ibid, para 185.

  242. 242.

    Enterprise v. Europcar, [2015] EWHC 17 (Ch), para 182.

  243. 243.

    London Taxi v. Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch) and London Taxi v. Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2017] EWCA Civ 1729.

  244. 244.

    It was the second defendant (Ecotive) that sought to introduce the Metrocab as such, whereas the first defendant (Frazer-Nash) were to supply parts Metrocab. See London Taxi v. Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch), para 1.

  245. 245.

    For an overview of the grounds, see London Taxi Company v Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2017] EWCA Civ 1729, para 19.

  246. 246.

    London Taxi v. Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch), para 160.

  247. 247.

    Ibid, para 162. Although not considered when framing the average consumer, owners of taxi fleets could also have been considered when taxi drivers were not themselves owners of their taxis. See on this distinction, e.g. ibid, para 58. In this context it should be mentioned that even if drivers would not themselves own the taxis they would rent the taxis from the fleet owners, and this way affect the choice of the purchased taxi. Also, it would not change the level of attention of the average consumer decisively here, since taxi drivers are considered as having a high level of attention, and so would the fleet owners.

  248. 248.

    Ibid, para 161. Further, Arnold J found no ground in Court of Justice and UK precedence for including taxi hirers as part of the average consumer.

  249. 249.

    Ibid, para 163.

  250. 250.

    Ibid, para 247.

  251. 251.

    Ibid, para 248.

  252. 252.

    Ibid, para, 262.

  253. 253.

    LJ Floyd referred to Björnekulla Fruktindustrier, Case C-371/02, [2004] ECR I-5791 and Kornspitz Company v. Pfahnl Backmittel, Case C-409/12, [2014], but concluded that the decisions did not clarify if the average consumer should include consumers (end users) “who does not take complete possession of the goods is a different question,” London Taxi Company v Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2017] EWCA Civ 1729, paras 24-32. Here, LJ Floyd also addressed Schütz v. Delta Containers, [2011], EWHC 1712 (Ch) and GAP v. British American Group, [2016] EWHC 599 (Ch) that equally does not address a comparable situation.

  254. 254.

    London Taxi v. Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch), para 161.

  255. 255.

    London Taxi Company v Frazer-Nash and Ecotive, [2017] EWCA Civ 1729, para 34.

  256. 256.

    Ibid, para 35.

  257. 257.

    Ibid, paras 83-85.

  258. 258.

    This aspect feeds into the discussion on feedback loops in Chap. 12, Sect. 12.5.

  259. 259.

    On the “usual origin” factor as a strong factor applied when comparing of the product, see above, Sect. 11.3.

  260. 260.

    With all respect of the unique cultural connotations attached to the Fairway taxi, the author of this book would most likely remember the name of the taxi company (supplying the taxi services), if it for the third time in a row had issues with their vehicle causing delays in the transportation of the author from A to B. The author would primarily see this as a sign of poor maintenance of the taxi fleet, not issues caused by the manufacturer of the vehicle. For the next taxi ride, another taxi service provider (with a taxi fleet bearing another service provider’s trademark) would be chosen.

  261. 261.

    In Swedish: “har köparkretsen för alkoholhaltiga drycker tillskrivits en hög grad av märkesmedvetenhet.” Mast-Jägermeister v. Vin & Sprit, T 799-99, [2001], p. 7.

  262. 262.

    In Swedish: “Den höga medvetenheten hos köpare av starksprit talar också mot förväxlingsrisk.” Ibid, p. 8.

  263. 263.

    Mast-Jägermeister v. Vin & Sprit, T 2982-01, [2003], SESC, p. 5.

  264. 264.

    In Swedish: “gängse konsumentvaror” “omsättningskretsen består av den breda allmänheten i Sverige.” Kraft Foods v. Mars, T 14294-09 and T 7359-10, [2012], SEDC, p. 17.

  265. 265.

    In Swedish: “utgörs av sådana dagligvaror som är föremål för spontanköp.” Mars v. Kraft Foods, T 5406-15, [2016], SECA, p. 15.

  266. 266.

    See respectively, Mars v. Kraft Foods, T 7141-12, [2013], SECA and Mars v. Kraft Foods, T 5406-15, [2016], SECA.

  267. 267.

    Mars v. Kraft Foods, T 5406-15, [2016], SECA, p. 15.

  268. 268.

    For instance, the CEO of Puma Denmark explained how the sports goods shops in Denmark paid attention to shoes with similar side applications sold in supermarkets. Coop Danmark v. Puma, U.2008.446H, [2007], (DKSC), p. 450. Coop argued before the DK MCH Court that it was when the Puma shoe was sold out in sports goods shops that the customer went to one of Coop’s Kvickly supermarkets to buy the Coop shoe. Ibid, p. 451.

  269. 269.

    In Danish: “Det er ikke ukendt, at restpartier af originale sko sælges i supermarkeder, hvorfor kunderne i første omgang ikke vil tænke nærmere over pris og kvalitet, og når skoen først er købt og anvendt, er det for sent. Prisen er derfor uden betydning for vurderingen.” Ibid, p. 450.

  270. 270.

    A supermarket chain owned by Coop.

  271. 271.

    Essentially, meaning the “ordinary Dane.”

  272. 272.

    In Danish: “Pumas sko er af fremragende kvalitet og sælges typisk i lifestyle- og sportsforretninger, hvor køberen, der typisk er en sportsudøvende mand på 15-25 år, vejledes af en ekspedient og betaler 500-1.000 kr. for skoen, som leveres i en flot rød æske. Coop-skoen hænger derimod som stangvare i Kvickly og købes for omkring 100 kr. af “Hr. og Fru Danmark”, som ikke er i tvivl om, at de har købt en billig supermarkedssko.” Puma v. Coop Danmark, U.2011.3433, [2013], (DKSC), p. 3436.

  273. 273.

    In Danish: “På grund af ligheden, og da både Pumas sko og Coops sko sælges som stangvarer i supermarkeder og ofte til priser, der ligger tæt på hinanden, er der en risiko for forveksling.” Ibid, p. 3438.

  274. 274.

    Similar arguments were presented by the parties in the declaratory action OTCF v. Hummel decided by DK MCH Court under the TM Regulation also related to e.g. likelihood of confusion between marks used for sports clothing. The defendant (OTCF) wanted the court to declare the it did not infringe the defendant’s (Hummel) trademark right. The claimant advocated a level of attention of relevant public “higher than usual” (in Danish: “højere end sædvanligt”) e.g. due to the price of the goods (OTCF v. Hummel, V-67-16, [2017], (DKMCHC), p. 18). The defendant advocated an “average level of attention” (in Danish: “gennemsnitligt opmærksom”) of the relevant consumer (ibid, p. 22-23). Without further assessment of the average consumer, the court found for the defendant according to a global appreciation of likelihood of confusion (ibid, p. 27).

  275. 275.

    In Danish: “G-Star Raw kunder er typisk en mand/kvinde mellem 28-35 år, som er prisbevidst og kvali-tetsbevidst, og som ønsker at kommunikere over for omverdenen, at de benytter velkendte brands.” G-Star Raw v. Kings & Queens, A-35-17, [2018], (DKMCHC), p. 17.

  276. 276.

    Ibid, p. 18.

  277. 277.

    In Danish: “Ingen danske forbrugere vil være i tvivl om, at RAW betyder RÅ” Ibid, p. 28.

  278. 278.

    Ibid, p. 29 and 33.

  279. 279.

    Ibid, p. 18.

  280. 280.

    Rå in Danish may be the same as raw in English, but it may also among others mean cool or tough.

  281. 281.

    Ibid, p. 35-36.

  282. 282.

    In Danish: “svare til gennemsnitsforbrugerens opfattelse af mærkets betydning og meningsindhold.” Ibid, p. 37.

  283. 283.

    In Danish: “en betydelig del af kundegruppen antages at være bevidste.”

  284. 284.

    Ibid.

  285. 285.

    Ibid, p. 38.

  286. 286.

    In Danish: “Køberkredsen er hovedsagelig almindelige forbrugere, dvs. ikke-eksperter, for hvem princippet om det udviskede erindringsbillede er gældende.” Ankenævnet v. Chantelle, U.2003.2366H, [2003], (DKSC), p. 2369.

  287. 287.

    In Danish: “Hertil kommer at de kvinder som køber dyrt fransk undertøj, fuldt ud er klar over hvilke mærker de ønsker at købe. Da kunderne således i høj grad er opmærksomme og mærkebevidste, må der anlægges en mindre streng forvekslingsbedømmelse.” Ibid, p. 2369-2370.

  288. 288.

    Ibid, p. 2370.

  289. 289.

    In Danish: “højt specialiserede varer som fortrinsvis købes af bygherrer, entreprenører og tømrermestre, som oftest på grundlag af rådgivning der er givet af arkitekter efter nærmere faglige overvejelser.” Saint-Gobain v. Richter-System, U.2006.1203H, [2006], (DKSC), p. 1208.

  290. 290.

    The first quote in Norwegian: “Dess billigere og dess unselig varen er, og dess mindre roll dens kvalitet spiller for kjøperen, desto større er gjerne faren for at ulikheter i kjennetegnene overses.” Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 417.

  291. 291.

    In Norwegian: “merkebevisst.” NYX v. Laboratoire Nuxe, TOSLO-2014-79765, [2015], NODC, p. 7.

  292. 292.

    Ibid referring to Klagenemnda v. W Pelz, HR-1998-63-A, [1998], NOSC, p. 1992 and Lassen, Birger Stuevold and Stenvik, Are, ‘Kjennetegnsrett’, (3rd edn, Universitetsforlaget, 2011), p. 418.

  293. 293.

    In Norwegian: “Retten antar at gjennomsnittsforbrukeren har en høyere merkebevissthet for sminke og ulike typer kremer.” NYX v. Laboratoire Nuxe, TOSLO-2014-79765, [2015], NODC, p. 7. Reference was made by the court to Lancôme v. OHIM I, Case T-466/08, [2011] ECR II-1831, paras 48-49. On this latter decision, see above Sect. 11.4.1.1.

  294. 294.

    In Norwegian: “gjennomsnittsforbrukeren har et middels oppmerksomhetsnivå”. NYX v. Laboratoire Nuxe, TOSLO-2014-79765, [2015], NODC, p. 8.

  295. 295.

    Ibid, p. 9.

  296. 296.

    Klagenemnda v. W Pelz, HR-1998-63-A, [1998], NOSC, p. 1992-1993.

  297. 297.

    Altia v. Arctic Beverage Group, TOSLO-2017-52797, [2018]. NODC.

  298. 298.

    Vinmonopolet is a state-owned monopoly vendor of e.g. wine in Norway.

  299. 299.

    Altia v. Arctic Beverage Group, TOSLO-2017-52797, [2018]. NODC, p. 7. In Norwegian: “hva slags vare det dreier seg om. Vi befinner oss på et område der man må anta at publikum generelt sett har en viss merkebevissthet. (…) de senere årene er blitt ytterligere skjerpet. Vindrikking er blitt mer utbredt som følge av velstandsutvikling, med økt reising, vinspalter i aviser og blader,vinsmakingskurs m.v.” The quote is taken from the previous decision of the NO District Court Trading Scandinavia v. Patentstyret, TOSLO-2004-6764, [2004], NODC, p. 6.

  300. 300.

    Jacoby, Jacob, ‘Trademark Surveys Volume I: Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Surveys’, (1st edn, American Bar Association, 2013), p. 146 (italics added).

  301. 301.

    Google France v. Louis Vuitton, Case C-236/08, [2010], Google France v. Viaticum, Case C-237/08, [2010], and Google France v CNRRH, Case C-238/08, [2010], (the cases C-236/08 – C-238/08 have been assessed jointly by the Court of Justice and will be referred to jointly as “Google France cases.”) all published in [2010] ECR I-2417, Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen v. trekking.at Reisen, Case C-278/08, [2010] ECR I-2517, Eis.de v. BBY, Case C-91/09, [2010], Portakabin v. Primakabin, Case C-558/08, [2010] ECR I-6963, Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, Case C-323/09, [2011] ECR I-8625 (referred to in the main text as “Interflora Court of Justice”). The above decisions relate to using keyword tools (in Google terminology AdWords) consisting of trademarks.

  302. 302.

    L’Oréal v. eBay International, Case C-324/09, [2011] ECR I-6011.

  303. 303.

    For a further description of the factual and legal scenario, see e.g. Google France cases, Cases C-236/08 – C-238/08 [2010] ECR I-2417, paras 46-47.

  304. 304.

    Now art. 9(2)(a) of the TM Regulation (art. 9(1)(a) of the TM Regulation 2009) and art. 10(2)(a) of the TM Directive (art. 5(1)(a) of the TM Directive 2008).

  305. 305.

    Google France cases, Cases C-236/08 – C-238/08 [2010] ECR I-2417.

  306. 306.

    See Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad, Gangjee, Dev and Johnson, Phillip ‘Intellectual Property Law’, (5th edn, Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 1118 and Cornish, William R., Llewelyn, David, and Alpin, Tanya, ‘Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and Allied Rights’, (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2013), p. 758.

  307. 307.

    Google France cases, Cases C-236/08 – C-238/08, [2010] ECR I-2417.

  308. 308.

    Ibid, para 84 (italics added).

  309. 309.

    Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen v. trekking.at Reisen, Case C-278/08, [2010] ECR I-2517, paras 34-35, Portakabin v. Primakabin, Case C-558/08, [2010] ECR I-6963, paras 52-54, and L’Oréal v. eBay International, Case C-324/09, [2011] ECR I-6011, para 94. Not surprisingly, the Court of Justice in Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen GmbH v. trekking.at and Portakabin BV v. Primakabin BV confirmed its stance in the Google France cases. The cases are comparable to the facts, and the former decision was issued only two days after Google France cases, the latter four months after this decision.

  310. 310.

    Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen v. trekking.at Reisen, Case C-278/08, [2010] ECR I-2517, paras 39-40, and Portakabin v. Primakabin, Case C-558/08, [2010] ECR I-6963, paras 52-53.

  311. 311.

    In L’Oréal v. eBay and Interflora Court of Justice the Court of Justice stated that average internet users are “reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant.” L’Oréal v. eBay International, Case C-324/09, [2011] ECR I-6011, para 94 and Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, Case C-323/09, [2011] ECR I-8625, paras 44 and 50. Consequently, on the face of it, there is a difference in wording between this definition of the average consumer and the above definition of the internet user as “normally informed and reasonably attentive internet users.”

  312. 312.

    See also Arnold J in Interflora v. Marks & Spencer [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch), para 231.

  313. 313.

    The Court of Justice might also be reluctant to do so in the future, since this would probably be perceived by the court as an assessment of the facts.

  314. 314.

    Google France v. Louis Vuitton, Case C-236/08, [2010] ECR I-2417.

  315. 315.

    Portakabin v. Primakabin, Case C-558/08, [2010] ECR I-6963.

  316. 316.

    L’Oréal v. eBay International, Case C-324/09, [2011] ECR I-6011.

  317. 317.

    Google France v. Viaticum, Case C-237/08, [2010] ECR I-2417 and Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen v. trekking.at Reisen, Case C-278/08, [2010] ECR I-2517.

  318. 318.

    Google France v CNRRH, Case C-238/08, [2010] ECR I-2417.

  319. 319.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, Case C-323/09, [2011] ECR I-8625.

  320. 320.

    See also Arnold J in Interflora v. Marks & Spencer [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch), para 231.

  321. 321.

    Dinwoodie and Gangjee have pointed out, based on Datacard Corporation v. Eagle, [2011] EWHC 244 (Pat), that “[i]t is too soon to know whether the elements of the consumer that the Court [of Justice] has devised in crafting the “average internet user” will give rise to more generally applicable evolutions in the construct of the consumer.” Dinwoodie, Graeme, and Gangjee, Dev, ‘The Image of the Consumer in EU Trade Mark Law’, in Leczykiewicz, Dorota, and Weatherill, Stephen eds., The Images of the Consumer in EU Law: Legislation, Free Movement and Competition Law (1st edn, Hart, 2016), 339, p. 366, including footnote 140 of the text. Although tentatively, Davis has concluded that “[a] case in point is the courts’ recognition of the average internet user as being somehow different from the average consumer.” Davis, Jennifer, ‘Revisiting the Average Consumer: An Uncertain Presence in European Trade Mark’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, no. 1, (2015), pp. 15, p. 30. Based on case law, Wallberg has also seen the average internet user as rooted in the well established average consumer. Wallberg, Knud, ‘Brug af Andres Varemærker i Digitale Medier: Et Bidrag til Afklaring af Varemærkerettens Indhold og Grænseflader’, (1st edn, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, 2015), p. 210-211.

  322. 322.

    Besides this finding, the General Court made no principle remarks on the average consumer in the online environment. Novartis v. OHIM, Case T-331/09, [2010] ECR II-5967, para 28 (italics added). The court referred to this finding in in Novartis v. EUIPO II, Case T-238/15, [2017], paras 65-66. The latter decision is further dealt with in Sect. 11.4.1.2.

  323. 323.

    See for instance, from Sweden: Elskling v. Kundkraft, [2012] MD 2012:15, para 99; Denmark: Billedbutikken v. Pixelpartner, U.2011.634S, [2010], (DKMCHC), p. 639 and STOK Emballage v. Fritex Emballage, V-3-14, [2015], (DKMCHC), p. 10. Differently, though, in Eico v. Multikøkkener where reference is merely made to “consumers.” Eico v. Multikøkkener, SH2015.V-21-15S, [2015], (DKMCHC), p. 5. Norway: Although on unfair competition law, the NO Court of Appeal referred to “internet user” as the relevant public in Rørlegger Sentralen v. Rørleggervakta. Rørlegger Sentralen v. Rørleggervakta, [2014] LB-2012-118015 NOCA, p. 6.

  324. 324.

    Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch), para 231 (italics added). See also Interflora v. Marks & Spencer, [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, para 112. See also the more recent Victoria Plum v. Victorian Plumbing where the formulations are used unchangeably, Victoria Plum v. Victorian Plumbing, [2016] EWHC 2911 (Ch), paras 17 and 62.

  325. 325.

    On the relevance of the average consumer as part of assessing distinctive character, see Chap. 1, Sect. 1.5.1, including footnote 108.

  326. 326.

    As mentioned in the introduction, the assessment of distinctive character of a mark is conducted referring to the perception of the average consumer. It has been ruled by the Court of Justice that this assessment is also a matter of fact to be assessed by “the competent authority.” Henkel, Case C-218/01, [2004] ECR I-1725, paras 50 and 63 and also Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Remington Consumer Products, Case C-299/99, [2002] ECR I-5475, paras 63 and 65. In the recent August Storck v. EUIPO appeal, the applicant, according to the Court of Justice, sought “to call into question the factual assessment made by the General Court” of descriptive character. The Court of Justice stated, that the applicant was seeking to have the Court of Justice conduct “a new assessment of the facts, without alleging in that regard any form of distortion of those facts by the General Court. However, since an appeal lies on points of law only, that argument must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.” August Storck v. EUIPO, Case C-636/15 P, [2016], para 36.

  327. 327.

    OHIM v. BORCO, Case C-265/09 P, [2010] ECR I-8265, para 25 (the figurative sign ‘α’) and August Storck v. OHIM, Case C-24/05 P, [2006] ECR I-5677, para 25 (shape of a sweet). See also Henkel, Case C-218/01, [2004] ECR I-1725, para 52 (the shape of a bottle), Mag Instrument v. OHIM, Case C-136/02 P, [2004] ECR I-9165, para 30 (shape of a torch), Proctor Gamble, joined cases C-468/01 P to C-472/01 P, [2004] ECR I-5173, para 36 (the shape of tablets for washing machines), Libertel v. Benelux-Merkenbureau, Case C-104/01, [2003] ECR I-3793 (colour per se), para 65 and Linde et al, joined cases C-53/01 to C-55/01, [2003] ECR I-3161, para 48 (the shape of certain vehicles, a torch and a wrist watch).

  328. 328.

    Linde et al, joined cases C-53/01 to C-55/01, [2003] ECR I-3161 (opinion of AG Colomer), para 12. See also recently Coca-Cola v. OHIM, Case T-411/14, [2016], para 37.

  329. 329.

    Libertel v. Benelux-Merkenbureau, Case C-104/01, [2003] ECR I-3793, para 65. The empirical rule was not applied by the Court of Justice in Linde, although it was before this decision that Advocate General Colomer seemed to have laid the foundation for the empirical rule. The Linde decision was issued 3 April 2003 and Libertel 6 May 2003. Due to significant personal overlap between the judges composing the Court of Justice in the two decisions and the temporal proximity of the decisions, it does not seem farfetched to assume that Colomer’s assumptions in Linde may have found their way into Libertel. With no explicit linking by the Court of Justice, though, this is mere speculation.

  330. 330.

    The meaning of “empirical rule” in the statistical sense of standard deviation is addressed above in footnote 329, including the main text connected with it.

  331. 331.

    See e.g. Libertel v. Benelux-Merkenbureau, Case C-104/01, [2003] ECR I-3793, para 66. This is also referred to as the “need to keep free” or the “principle of keeping free.” For an analysis of these see Phillips, Jeremy, ‘Trade Mark Law and the Need to Keep Free’, International Review of Industrial Property and Competition Law, vol. 36/no. 4, (2005), pp. 389 and Laustsen, Rasmus D. ‘The principle of keeping free within EU Trade Mark Law,’ Rettid 2 (2010), pp. 1. available at: http://law.au.dk/fileadmin/Jura/dokumenter/forskning/rettid/2010/afh2-2010.pdf (last visited 26 May 2019). Recently, Pila has described Libertel and Henkel as examples where the Court of Justice makes both an “empirical” and “normative” assumption. Pila, Justine, ‘The Subject Matter of Intellectual Property’, (1st edn, Oxford University Press, 2017), p. 198-199.

  332. 332.

    Jacob has stated that Colomer was “[k]nown for his flamboyant opinions.” Jacob, Marc A., ‘Precedents and Case-Based Reasoning in the European Court of Justice: Unfinished Business’, (1st edn, Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 209. Maybe not flamboyant, but Colomer’s opinion in Linde is certainly notable.

  333. 333.

    See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.6.

  334. 334.

    See e.g. the references to Underhill in Chap. 12, Sect. 12.7.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IPR & Compliance, Group Legal, Grundfos Holding A/S, Bjerringbro, Denmark

    Rasmus Dalgaard Laustsen

Authors
  1. Rasmus Dalgaard Laustsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Laustsen, R.D. (2020). Contextualisation of the Average Consumer. In: The Average Consumer in Confusion-based Disputes in European Trademark Law and Similar Fictions . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26350-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26350-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26349-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26350-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation