(1) The referring Court requests to know the consequences for the assessment of likelihood of confusion of a CTM consisting of a word viewed from the perspective of the average consumer of a part of a Member State when the phonetic similarity between a CTM and an allegedly infringing sign is neutralized. In contrast, from the perspective of the average consumer of other Member States in which such a neutralisation does not occur:
(a) which part is essential for the assessment of likelihood of confusion? The perception of one part of the average consumer or the other part, or the perception of a fictitious average consumer encompassing all Member States?
(b) where the likelihood of confusion is given in one part only, is the CTM infringed in the whole territory of the EU, or does a differentiation between the Member States need to be undertaken?
|Grumpy Cat printed very well, but Merpel|
doesn't understand how they kept him so
still while he was being printed ...
"I see the reference to 3D CAD files. Do you know if the software industry is engaging?"
"It seems that a little-heralded tender is closing at the European Patent Organisation (EPO) for human translation of Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russan and Spanish patents into English, as reported by the EPO here.
The EPO already has a section which procures translations of patents cited by EPO examiners, when required. So does anyone know what is this tender about? Does the EPO propose to close the existing section handling examiner requests, or is the office expecting a deluge of demand following on from some new rule that examiner/patentee citations must be translated to English?