5 Jul 2011
SAO PAULO ALPARGATAS S.A. v BUT FASHION SOLUTIONS COMERCIO E INDUSTRIA DE ARTIGOS EM PELE LDA HC WN CIV 2010-485-2473
- Citation
- openlaw-ea8d273e_7d87_4d9f_b875_c000ef35b5ee.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The Assistant Commissioner was correct to conclude there is no likelihood of deception or confusion under s 17(1)(a) because, despite a shared tropical theme and a common ending, the marks differ sufficiently in visual and aural impression (notably different beginnings and a distinctive device in CUBANAS) such that imperfect recollection will not produce confusion; the broader notional use enquiry under s 25(1)(b) does not change that conclusion; although HAVAIANAS was found to be well known in New Zealand on the evidence, the remaining requirements of s 25(1)(c) (that use of CUBANAS would be…