FACTORS THAT DETRMINE CONSUMER CONFUSION IN TRADE MARK INFRINGEMNET

Trademark infringement occurs when a uk trademark law is used by a third party in a way that infringes a trademark owner’s exclusive use of a trademark. Often, someone uses a similar mark in a manner that confuses consumers about the source of goods and services. For example, the name of a fast-food restaurant "Wendi" is probably confusion with "Wendy's”. Trademark name infringement can only occur when it is likely that consumers will be confused about the source of goods. The aim of this paper is to examine the test and the factors that courts uses to determine whether such a violation happens.

Many courts have developed a balancing test for determining whether a trademark violates on another. This balancing test has a lot of the leading case of Polaroid Corp. v. Polar elected. Corp., 287 F. 2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961). In this case, the Court identified several variables to consider when determining whether a mark is to interfere in another brand. This balancing test is whether consumers are likely confused about the source of the brand. If the test favors that could result in confusion, the court will rule that trade mark brand infringement exists. On the other hand, if confusion is unlikely, or very little, the court rules against counterfeiting.
The following factors used by judges to assess the possibility of trademark infringement lawyer by the likelihood of confusion for consumers. None of these factors is controlled by the issue of consumer confusion, and each factor must be considered in relation to the final probability of confusion.

The first factor the court will consider the strength of the brands in question. The strength of the brand is determined by the distinctiveness of the mark. The most unique and distinct brand, the brand will be better protected against new users. However, descriptive and generic brand, the courts provide less protection to them. For example, the KODAK brand will receive more protection than a similar product that uses the speed dial PHOTOS.

Another factor considered is the similarity between the marks. The similarity of the marks is tested on sight, sound and meaning. The marks shall be considered as a whole to identify similarities. A brand that is different from the other, but it gives a similar printing business might be considered similar and therefore weigh in favor of confusion. For example, a trademark disputes consisting of the word money could be confused with the mark of $ $ $ because the brands have similar commercial impressions.
The courts will also consider the proximity of the goods on the market. This test concerns sales channels used by the goods. Similar products of the greater the likelihood that they coexist on the market. Related brands, which also could create confusion about the source of these goods. Related products are very likely to cause confusion with independent objects.

The above three factors weigh heavily in determining likelihood of confusion. A mark will not be found confusingly similar with another mark if the two are not found similar in one of these areas, and the complaining mark is considered a weak mark.

Having gone through these courts will consider the likelihood that the prior owner will "bridge the gap" on the market. This factor concerns the possibility that the brand will expand into other product lines. The expansion more likely will take place, the confusion among consumers most likely to exist.
Next courts examine the evidence of actual confusion. When the matter be brought to justice, the display is usually in the form of consumer surveys have divided. The research data of this nature is often a confusion violations crucial.

Courts will also look to sophisticated purchasers of goods or services to determine the risk of confusion. The courts have held that the sophisticated buyers who have expertise in a particular area are less likely to be confused by similarities in the marks. In addition, courts have held that consumers of goods and services that are expensive to exercise greater care to these buyers expensive. For example, a consumer more carefully when buying a car compared to when the consumer buys a piece of candy.

The final factor courts consider the case of trademark logo infringement is intended by the defendant. If a defendant copies of the existing trade mark in bad faith to use the mark of good will to find a violation of court favor. The risk of confusion is the most important in determining the violation, regardless of intent. If copies of the character that does not lead to mislead the consumer, the courts can not find a violation.

Above mentioned facts are not a rigid set of factors used by the courts. Most jurisdictions use some form of the above factors in determining whether a likelihood of confusion happens or not. Despite the different variants, ultimately the courts attempt to discover whether the marks used in commerce, causing confusion among consumers and lead to trademark infringement.

Gross Misconduct and Dismissal a difficult area of Employment Law

If you've seen someone at work, are invited without warning to "leave immediately" or "clean up your desktop, then they may well have been fired unfairly or was found guilty of gross misconduct. This is very serious; this is a situation in which the action of an employee is deemed to express their position in society is simply untenable. This can range from discrimination behavior to violence and drunkenness of the flights, but the result is always the same: the contractual relationship between the employee and the employer is terminated and the employee leaves without notice or compensation in lieu of notice.

The employer must always be presented as the contract is classified as a grave offense, as it makes it easier to identify unwanted behaviors later on down the line. Although it is quite common sense, such activities are regarded as gross misconduct; the employer shall continue to be careful. If they leave serious breach of the employee, and then taken to the Employment Tribunal, they must demonstrate that the decision was just and reasonable, and other "reasonable" employer would have made the same choice.

Contrary to many beliefs, immediate dismissal for gross misconduct does not really mean immediate dismissal. It is assumed as illegal termination of an employee without investigation and disciplinary hearing by allowing the employee to express their views and have them registered. If, after taking into account the circumstances and decide to continue the termination of the employee gives the employee the opportunity to appeal, they can sue youin civil courts or the Court. To complicate matters more, if the employer gives the employee notice of termination or pay, they are seen as weakened their case.

The area of gross negligence is a difficult area of employment law, because the term itself and the procedure is open to several interpretations. In the absence of absolute definition of what Racism at works, what constitutes gross misconduct will always be opportunities for employers to get it wrong.

Experiencing discrimination at work?

For Lambrou v Cyprus Airways Ltd [2007]concerned an employee who alleged that he was constructively unfairly dismissed. The employee was hired by Cypriar Tours Ltd ("Cypriar"), which was a subsidiary of the employer. The worker has been hired as a computer operator on January 23, 1989. However, from May 1, 2003, he also worked for the employer. In June 2004 all employees were notified that within three to four months Cyprian will cease all activity. The employee had not received his written work for the Employment, requested for the employer contract. The manager informed written account; the employee would be transferred to their payroll on 1 October. On September 27, staff sent an e-mail seeking clarification from the transfer officer. After learning that his P45 was issued for inter company purposes, the employee requested for a copy. His application was rejected at first, but was sent on 24 September.

The employer appealed. An issue arose as to whether the employee had failed to present a grievance in respect of the constructive unfair dismissal as required by the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004.The appeal would be allowed.It was held that dismissal claims were not subject to the requirement that they went through a grievance unless they were for constructive dismissal. What was required to be presented as a grievance was the same complaint as the employee sought to have determined before the tribunal. In this case, the very limited basis upon which the claim had been allowed to go forward by the tribunal had been incorrect. The only basis on which the claimant had got through the gateway to a hearing of his constructive unfair dismissal claim was reliance upon the emails. The complaint sought to be determined before the tribunal was that the employer had deemed the employee's contract not to be binding.

In the earlier emails there had been mention of the dispute about the precise terms and conditions of employment tribunals. However, in those earlier emails there had been no indication that the employee regarded his contract as void or that he would take steps to leave. It followed therefore that that was not the same complaint as was presented to the tribunal and thus it had been wrong to allow that part of the case to go forward.