Hm, says the IPKat. He's not really sure that there would be confusion here. Tarnishment perhaps because of the association with cigarettes, but this would be a long shot, since the junior user is anti-smoking.
Hm, says the IPKat. He's not really sure that there would be confusion here. Tarnishment perhaps because of the association with cigarettes, but this would be a long shot, since the junior user is anti-smoking.
I think you are right- I don't see how a confusion argument could hold in this case. And I can't really see an unfair advantage or dilution case either, at least not with European trade mark law standards (I wonder how "change in the economic behavior" would be demonstrated here).
ReplyDelete