Case No. EWHC-941-(IPEC)

118.Under s.10(3) liability can arise in respect of any of three types of injury - (a) detriment to the distinctive character of the mark (often called “dilution”), (b) detriment to the repute of the mark (“tarnishment”) and (c) unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character or repute of the mark (“free-riding”). 119.Match’s claim in this regard was focussed primarily on injury within (a) and (c) above. Whilst type (b) injury (damage to repute or tarnishment) was relied on in Match’s Particulars of Claim, it was barely mentioned by Mr Austen in his submissions and, in my judgment, rightly so. I have been shown no evidence that Muzmatch’s use of its Signs is liable to tarnish the image of the Match Marks in the way envisaged by cases such as L'Oreal v Bellure NV Case C-487/07 at [40].