Understanding Trademark Likelihood of Confusion: Unfair Competition in a Digital Era

Nukri Jintcharadze

doi:10.19044/esj.2024.v20n14p1

Nukri Jintcharadze PhD Candidate in Law, Grigol Robakidze University, Tbilisi, Georgia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2024.v20n14p1

Keywords: Unfair competition, social networks, trademark, likelihood of confusion, misleading advertising

Abstract

The development of the digital economy have increased risks of unfair competition using inappropriate or obviously false advertising of trademarks through social media. This, however, has erased legal ambiguity regarding the assessment of comparators of the trademarks before confusion for establishing unfair competition through the social networks. The paper distributes comparative research on distinguishing “legal name" and "commercial name” of trademarks before confusion when used for advertising purposes. While legal name is less relevant for the consumer, the commercial name under which undertaking operates on the market is a crucial element for establishing unfair competition. Accordingly, the paper through analytical research focuses on examining the rule of necessity of the cumulative presence of three established comparators: visual, phonetic, and semantic. Also, confusion between trademarks through the prism of unfair competition legislation can arise even without the presence of all these elements. The article provides suggestions to redefine legislative connotations of legal name and commercial name in respective statutory acts. It also recommends amending the notion of misleading commercial practice in Directive 2005/29/EC as the presence of the likelihood of one of the comparator autonomously creates confusion with any products, trademarks, trade names or other distinguishing marks of a competitor. As for Directive 2006/114/EC, it should be determined that in cases of misleading and comparative advertising, confusion may arise due to the presence of the likelihood of one of the comparators solely.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX Statistics

References

1. Barnes, D.W. & Laky, T.A. (2004). Classic Fair Use of Trademarks: Confusion about Defences, Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, Volume 20.
2. Constitution of Georgia.
3. Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark.
4. Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to consumer commercial practices in the internal market.
5. Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2006 of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising.
6. Dzamukashvili, D. (2012). Law of Intellectual Rights, Meridiani, Tbilisi.
7. Erzachi, A. & Stucke, M. (2018). The fight over antitrust’s soul, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2018.
8. Goodstein, R.C., Bamossy, G.J., Englis, B.G., & Hogan, H.S. (2015). Using Trademarks as Keywords: Empirical Evidence of Confusion, the Law. Journal of International Trademark Association, Volume 105, Issue 3.
9. Guide Document issued by Georgian National Competition Agency on the rule of application and admissibility of complaints in Law of Georgia on Competition, 2022. https://gnca.gov.ge/legislation/guidelines <21/02/2022 >
10. Jorbenadze, S. (2022). Unfair Competition in the Internet and its legal consequences, Journal of Justice, Volume 1.
11. Law of Georgia on advertisement.
12. Law of Georgia on Competition.
13. Law of Georgia on Protection of Consumer rights.
14. Law of Georgia on Trademarks.
15. Lemley, M.A. & McKenna, M. (2010). Irrelevant Confusion, Stanford Law Review, Volume 62, Issue 2 2010.
16. McCarthy, T.J. (2008). McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition, 4th ed. 2008.
17. McCarthy, T.J. (2012). McCarthy on trademarks and unfair competition, 4th ed. 2012.
18. Njako, P. (2024). The Goals of Competition Law for a Developing Country: Finding the Best Fit, 87 THRHR 73.
19. Order N05, 19/08/2014, of Head of Georgian Intellectual Property National Centre on affirmation of rules regarding “Procedures related to application and registration of rights on trademarks."
20. Palizzi, M.A. & Simoni, M.C. (2012). The Confusion Continues over Key Word Confusion, 5.
21. Recent Case-law on the infringement and enforcement of intellectual property rights EUIPO, 2022.
22. United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 15 – Commerce and trade. COMMERCE AND TRADE.
23. Case Law of European Court of Justice
24. C T-162/01, Laboratorios RTB v OHIM, 2003, ECR II-2821, ECLI:EU:T:2003:199
25. C-234/06, Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM, 2007, ECR I- 7333, ECLI:EU:C:2007:514.
26. C-236/08, Google France SARL and Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and Luteciel SARL (C-237/08) and Google France SARL v Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others (C-238/08), 2010, ECR, ECLI:EU:C:2010:159.
27. C-278/08, Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günther Guni and trekking.at Reisen GmbH, 2009, ECR I-2517, ECLI:EU:C:2010:163.
28. C-321/03 Dyson Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks [2007] ECR I – 687, ECLI:EU:C:2007:51
29. C-328/18 P, EUIPO v Equivalenza Manufactory, 2020, ECR, ECLI:EU:C:2020:156;
30. C-49/02 Heidelberger Bauchemie Gmbh [2004] ECR I- 6129; ECLI:EU:C:2004:384.
31. C‑657/11, Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Bert Peelaers and Visys NV, 2013, ECR, ECLI:EU:C:2013:516.
32. C-73049/01, Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], ECHR 2007-I.
33. Case T 316/07, Commercy v OHIM, 2009, ECR II-43, EU:T:2009:14.
34. Case T 6/0123, Matratzen Concord v OHIM, 2002, ECR II-4335, ECLI:EU:T:2002:261.
35. Case T‑117/20, El Corte Inglés, SA v EUIPO, 2021, ECR, ECLI:EU:T:2021:81 etc.
36. Case T-323/14, Bankia v OHMI, 2017, ECR, ECLI:EU:T:2015:642.
37. Decision of EU member states Courts and Agencies
38. Case No MAO:25/20 Aarnio Design Oy, 2020, Markkinaoikeus (Finnish Market Court).
39. Decision of Polish Supreme Court on 09/05/2019 no. I CSK 263/1;
40. Decisions of United States Courts
41. Google, Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., No. 03-5340, 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2007).
42. Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. (Rosetta Stone II), 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012).
43. Decisions of Supreme Court of Georgia
44. Constitutional Court of Georgia, 10/10/2009, Decision no. №1/3/421,422 citizens of Georgia Giorgi Kipiani and Avtandil Ungiadze against Parliament of Georgia, II-6;
45. Constitutional Court of Georgia, 18/04/2018, Decision no. №2/482,483,487,502.
46. Supreme Court of Georgia, 01/12/2015, Decision no. № ას-1285-1223-2014. Decisions of Constitutional Court of Georgia
47. Decisions of Georgian Intellectual Property National Centre
48. Georgian Intellectual Property National Centre, Chamber of Appeals, 2014, Decision No. №106-03/14.
49. Decision of Georgian National Competition Agency,
50. Decision of Georgian National Competition Agency, 18/10/2018 no. 04/279.
51. Decision of Georgian National Competition Agency, 09/09/2020 no. 04/130.
52. Decision of Georgian National Competition Agency, 19/07/2017 no. 04/186.
53. Decision of Georgian National Competition Agency, 30/05/2018 no. 04/132.
54. Decision of Georgian National Competition Agency, 14/09/2016, no. 152.