The IPKat spent most of Friday at the trade mark session of the Fordham conference (where, incidentally, he delivered a paper on how dilution is being both expanded and shrunk by similarity of marks and similarity of goods respectively).
The zeitgeist amongst most of the speakers and panellists was that current trade mark law is in a bit of a mess, with the previous clear confusion standard being replaced by a notion that is at best vague, viz, the need to protect the trade mark's essential function. However, not all the audience, including the IPKat, agreed that things were so bad. Like the IPKat, they were firmly of the belief that European trade mark law has been deliberately has been moved away from protecting against confusion, and now protects a mark's distinctivness in a wider range of situations.
The vagaries of the US trade mark system were also noted. The award for comment of the day must go to David Llewelyn, who commented that it was reassuring to note that at least the Americans are just as confused as the Europeans.
The zeitgeist amongst most of the speakers and panellists was that current trade mark law is in a bit of a mess, with the previous clear confusion standard being replaced by a notion that is at best vague, viz, the need to protect the trade mark's essential function. However, not all the audience, including the IPKat, agreed that things were so bad. Like the IPKat, they were firmly of the belief that European trade mark law has been deliberately has been moved away from protecting against confusion, and now protects a mark's distinctivness in a wider range of situations.
The vagaries of the US trade mark system were also noted. The award for comment of the day must go to David Llewelyn, who commented that it was reassuring to note that at least the Americans are just as confused as the Europeans.
IPKAT @ Fordham #2
![IPKAT @ Fordham #2]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Monday, April 16, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[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