How Should Trademark Similarity Be Determined?

Determination Of Trademark Similarity?

The adjudicator also distinguished between a "well-known" trademark's recognizability and its acquired technical distinctiveness—its ability to distinguish a trader's goods or services. The trademark similarity test for distinctiveness requires objectively comparing both trademark similarities and average consumer mental impressions. This "average consumer" should be given the general knowledge of someone in the relevant market as well as the average Singaporean.

Taking all of this into account, the adjudicator concluded that Tata Sons' fields of commerce were so specialized that the average consumer in those fields could not be expected to have the same knowledge as someone purchasing the applicant Tata's goods. The former trademark became distinctive in a different field of commerce than the latter was used in.

Thus, acquired technical distinctiveness is meaningless in determining how well-known a trademark is unless and until:

1. The opponent's trademark is technically distinctive in the same relevant market as the application mark; or

2. The opponent's trademark is so well-known that it is "well-known to the general public" outside of the relevant market.

In the months of November and December 2022, the Office of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), India, issued a number of public notices in order to ensure the timely and hassle-free disposal of long-pending applications/matters, as well as to make the filing process faster and more seamless. We have compiled a list of the notices in this article.

1. According to the notice issued on December 26, 2022, the practise of giving 4 weeks' time from the date of hearing intimation/notice is discontinued, and all Controllers of Patents will follow the earlier practise of 10 days' time from the date of hearing intimation/notice with immediate effect.

This decision was made to ensure the timely disposition of long-pending applications/matters, as there are a large number of pending patent applications awaiting disposition, with or without pre-grant oppositions, as well as post-grant opposition matters against patent grant.

2. No party shall be granted more than two adjournments, and each adjournment should not last more than ten days.