Skip Navigation


Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on September 6, 2006
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2006 1(11):703-713; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl142
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1/11/703    most recent
jpl142v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Folliard-Monguiral, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

State of the Art

Coexistence in Community trade mark disputes: conditions and implications

Arnaud Folliard-Monguiral *

Legal context. A defence based on coexistence has no legal basis in the Trade Mark Directive or in the Community Trade Mark Regulation. Still, a practical approach to Community trade mark conflicts requires attention to the situation in the marketplace where conflicting marks may be shown to coexist without any current confusion or dilution being reported.

Key points. Trade mark coexistence may sometimes be persuasive, the strict requirements being laid down by the Community courts. Through a detailed review of the case-law of the Community courts and OHIM's Boards of Appeal, this article explains the conditions for and the consequences of proving the coexistence of the conflicting marks in cases based on likelihood of confusion or dilution.

Practical significance. Consideration must also be given to the effects of third parties' neighbouring marks which may diminish an earlier mark's distinctive character. Accordingly, this article further addresses the issue of whether the scope of protection of a mark may be damaged by the use of later marks in the light of the ECJ Judgment in the preliminary ruling Case C-145/05 Levi Strauss v Casucci Spa.


*Industrial Property Litigation Unit, OHIM. This article has no official character and the views expressed are the personal views of the author.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.