The brand awareness and tracking reports
25.Shortly before Meetic SAS acquired Match’s European operations in 2009, it commissioned a company called TNS to carry out a Brand Monitoring Survey in relation to the Match brand in the UK. Thereafter, brand awareness or brand tracking reports were obtained annually, from TNS until July 2012 and thereafter from a company called IPSOS. 26.These reports evidence the “top of mind” awareness, spontaneous awareness and aided awareness of the Match brand at the relevant time on the basis of the responses provided by a sample group of some 1000-2000 people split on the bases of gender, race, age, revenue, profession and other demographics. As Mr Riviere explained:a.Top of mind (“TOM”) awareness is where a brand is the first brand mentioned by members of the sample group when they are asked to name a brand spontaneously and without being given a list of brands as a prompt. This, Mr Riviere explained, is an important metric as consumers tend to act on the basis of their TOM awareness when deciding where to look for goods or services; b.Spontaneous awareness is where a brand is one of those mentioned when members of the sample group are asked to name a brand spontaneously and without any list; andc.Aided awareness is where a brand is recognised by members of the sample group from a list of brands which they are shown.27.
- 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
