The ECJ's judgment in Adidas-Salomon v Fitnessworld is out today. The full judgment isn't available on the ECJ's website yet but a press release is, saying:
"The Court has found that it is not necessary for there to exist a likelihood of confusion between the sign and the mark with a reputation in order to claim infringement of that mark. It is sufficient if the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark even though it does not confuse them.
However, the Court has specified that where, according to a finding of fact by the national court, the relevant section of the public views the sign purely as an embellishment, it does not necessarily establish any link with the mark with a reputation. It follows that the proprietor of the mark with a reputation cannot prevent the use of that embellishment by a third party."
Sadly the press-release doesn't give any article numbers so it's hard to know if the ECJ is talking about Article 5(1)(b) or Article 5(2). Watch this space - more from the IPKat as and when it becomes available.
"The Court has found that it is not necessary for there to exist a likelihood of confusion between the sign and the mark with a reputation in order to claim infringement of that mark. It is sufficient if the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark even though it does not confuse them.
However, the Court has specified that where, according to a finding of fact by the national court, the relevant section of the public views the sign purely as an embellishment, it does not necessarily establish any link with the mark with a reputation. It follows that the proprietor of the mark with a reputation cannot prevent the use of that embellishment by a third party."
Sadly the press-release doesn't give any article numbers so it's hard to know if the ECJ is talking about Article 5(1)(b) or Article 5(2). Watch this space - more from the IPKat as and when it becomes available.
ECJ DECIDES ADIDAS v FITNESSWORLD DILUTION CASE
![<strong>ECJ DECIDES <em>ADIDAS v FITNESSWORLD </em>DILUTION CASE</strong>]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html