Was there an infringement under s.10(3)
106.I will now deal with Match’s claims under s.10(3). In doing so, I will assume (contrary to my conclusion above) that use of the Muzmatch Signs did not give rise to any likelihood of confusion with the Match Marks within the meaning of 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