New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 25(1)(b)

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2015

OMEGA SA (OMEGA AG) (OMEGA LTD) v GURU DENIM INC [2015] NZHC 559 [25 March2015]

Citation

[2015] NZHC 559
Court

High Court

Omega failed to prove the Omega device had an independent reputation in New Zealand separate from the combined mark; the Omega symbol is recognisable as the Greek letter which anchors its orientation and meaning, and on a fair comparison the Guru mark is dissimilar so that use of the Guru mark in a normal way is not likely to deceive or cause confusion; therefore the Assistant Commissioner’s decision to allow registration of the Guru mark is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
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…