TNS report 2011
- in its 2011 report, TNS reverted to referring to the business as “match.com”. It reported that “Match.com is still leading the market” (p.7) based on scores of 28% for TOM awareness, 43% for spontaneous awareness and 69% for aided awareness (again, not including the separate figures for Match Affinity) as against scores for eHarmony (Match’s closest competitor) of 7%, 18% and 53% respectively. At p.8, the 2011 report noted that “Match.com’s awareness most comes from its TV ads” and that the awareness of Match Affinity was also “driven above all by TV”, although internet ads also played a part.32.
- 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