Markenabstand
English translation: difference which must exist between the marks
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 22:36 Jan 21, 2009 |
| German to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Patents | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Kim Metzger Mexico Local time: 08:11 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 +1 | difference which must exist between the marks |
| ||
| 3 | brand differentiation |
|
| Summary of reference entries provided | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| In support of Kim's answer |
|
Answers
24 mins confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +1
peer agreement (net): +1difference which must exist between the marks Explanation: I think it's a more literal distinction. 51. In ihrer Entscheidung, mit der der Widerspruch wegen fehlender Verwechslungsgefahr zurückgewiesen wurde, hat die Widerspruchsabteilung ausgeführt: „Selbst insoweit sich im vorliegenden Fall identische Waren gegenüberstehen, reichen die bestehenden Unterschiede der Vergleichszeichen aus, um [die Marken] mit noch hinreichender Sicherheit auseinander zu halten. Zwar sind im vorliegenden Fall strenge Maßstäbe an den einzuhaltenden Markenabstand auch deshalb anzulegen, weil es sich bei den betreffenden Vergleichswaren um Waren des täglichen Bedarfs handelt, die erfahrungsgemäß mit einer gewissen Flüchtigkeit und ohne besondere Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber den Warenkennzeichnungen erworben werden.“ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:... 51 In that respect, it should be stated that, in its decision dismissing the opposition on the ground that there was no likelihood of confusion, the Opposition Division stated: ‘Although identical goods are at issue in this case, the differences between the signs which are compared suffice to distinguish [the marks] with enough certainty. Admittedly, strict criteria should be applied in this case as regards the difference which must exist between the marks, in particular because the goods compared are staple goods which, as experience shows, are bought fairly carelessly and without particular attention being paid to the names of the goods.’ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 32 mins (2009-01-21 23:08:54 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Trademarks, like brands, build in strength over time. The test for trademark infringement is “confusing similarity.” Put another way, if the average consumer believes both products to have come from the same source, there is infringement. Obviously, the more a consumer is familiar with a particular brand, the more defendable its mark. That’s why it behooves a company to do the following: •choose a distinctive mark, including a “coined” name. Suggestive marks are the next most protectable. Examples include Coppertone, Duracell, and Lestoil. Even common words can be used as trademarks as long as they are not used descriptively. These common words/phrases are also suggestive marks: Amazon (big), Road Runner (fast) and Apple (different, offbeat). Descriptive marks are not protectable unless the brand creates a secondary meaning for the word. Examples include Weight Watchers, Rollerblade, and Wite-out. Generic marks, such as Shredded Wheat and Super Glue, are not protectable at all.) http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=18283&deptid... |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
9 mins confidence:
brand differentiation Explanation: This is a marketing term to describe what differentiates one brand from the competition. Perhaps it would capture the meaning of "Markenabstand" here. See: http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2006/12/achieving_bra... -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 14 hrs (2009-01-22 13:32:33 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- As has been pointed out by writeaway, this has to do with trademarks, not brands. My mistake. Forget brand differentiation. Perhaps "trademark differentiation"? In effect, generating the same harm as permitting patents on laws of nature or abstract ideas, see supra notes 143-47 and accompanying text; or "unjustified" trademark differentiation (...) http://www.mttlr.org/volseven/Chiapetta_notes.html |
| |||||||||
| ||||||||||
12 hrs |
| Reference: In support of Kim's answer Reference information: Another Community Trade Mark case showing related use of the term (see sections 39 and 40): It follows, in the applicant’s view, that the conflicting marks display, from the point of view of their graphic and verbal elements, sufficient differences to make them distinctive. 40. Thirdly, the applicant considers that the conflicting signs are sufficiently different on an auditory level since the requested sign will be pronounced ‘vitakraft’ whilst the verbal element of the earlier signs is pronounced ‘krafft’. Folglich hielten die sich gegenüberstehenden Zeichen aufgrund der grafischen und Wortelemente einen ausreichenden Abstand ein, um sie unterscheiden zu können. 40. Drittens hielten die Zeichen auch klanglich einen ausreichenden Abstand ein, da die angemeldete Marke als „Vitakraft“ vokalisiert werde, während das Wortelement der älteren Marken als „krafft“ ausgesprochen werde. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?mode=dbl&lang=en&ihmlang=... |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
KudoZ™ translation help
The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.
See also:
Search millions of term translations
Your current localization setting
English
Select a language
Close search