Conclusion on s.10(2)
105.For these reasons, I find that there is a likelihood of confusion as between the Muzmatch Signs and the Match Marks and, therefore, an infringement pursuant to s.10(2).
- Introduction
- The witnesses
- Match’s business and branding
- Match’s reputation and goodwill
- The brand awareness and tracking reports
- TNS report 2009
- TNS report 2010
- TNS report 2011
- TNS report 2012
- Later IPSOS reports
- Match.com/Match
- How this level of awareness was achieved
- A dating service targeted at Muslims
- The choice of the “muzmatch” name
- How the name “muzmatch” was used
- Muzmatch’s Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) activities
- Settlement discussions and Match’s acquisition of Harmonica
- The trade mark claims
- Sections 10(2) and 10(3)/Article 9(2)(b) and 9(2)(c)
- The average consumer
- The relevant date
- The law relating to infringements under s.10(2)
- Was there an infringement under s.10(2)
- Condition (v) – identical or similar goods/services
- Condition (iv) –similarity of the marks/signs
- Condition (vi) - the likelihood of confusion
- Conclusion on s.10(2)
- Was there an infringement under s.10(3)
- The law relating to infringement under s.10(3)
- Requirement (i) - reputation
- Requirement (v) - similarity of sign/mark
- Requirement (vii) – a link
- Requirement (viii) – the three types of injury
- Requirement (viii) – unfair advantage
- Requirement (viii) – detriment to distinctive character
- Requirement (ix) – without due cause
- Honest concurrent user
- Conclusion
- Post script – suitability of IPEC