Intel Corp Inc v CPM United Kingdom Ltd
Detriment to the distinctive character of a mark with a reputation, known as dilution, requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer.
Facts
Intel, the computer chip manufacturer, owned the well known mark INTEL. CPM registered the mark INTELMARK for marketing and telemarketing services. Intel applied for CPM's mark to be declared invalid, on the ground that its use would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of Intel's mark. The Court of Appeal referred questions to the Court of Justice.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the existence of a link between the two marks in the mind of the relevant public is necessary, but not sufficient, to establish that the use of the later mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark. Proof that the use of the later mark is or would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered, consequent on the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future.
Related cases on trade marks: infringement
- Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed Case C-206/01, [2002] ECR I-10273
- Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc Case C-39/97, [1998] ECR I-5507
- Cartier International AG v British Telecommunications plc [2018] UKSC 28, [2018] 1 WLR 3259
- Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp [2016] EWCA Civ 41, [2016] FSR 30
- General Motors Corp v Yplon SA (Chevy) Case C-375/97, [1999] ECR I-5421
- Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA Joined Cases C-236/08 to C-238/08, [2010] ECR I-2417
- Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, [2015] FSR 10
- L'Oréal SA v Bellure NV Case C-487/07, [2009] ECR I-5185
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
