A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents
the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website
or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.
Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:
“Cochrane Steel v. M-Systems”
D E C I S I O N 0
T R A D E M A R K L A W South Africa 0
0 Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition , Munich 2016
1. The determination of whether or not an advertiser acts in accordance with honest practices in commercial matters and fairly in relation to the legitimate interest of another trade mark proprietor depends upon whether or not consumers would understand the advertiser's Google advertisement to establish a link between the third party's goods and those of the trade mark proprietor, and of the extent to which the third party ought to have been aware of that. 2. If the trade mark proprietor establishes the likelihood of this link (i.e. confusion), then the advertiser will be held to have acted dishonestly or unfairly. 3. There is no likelihood of confusion or deception which arises in circumstances where an advertiser, without more, uses another trader's trade name only as a keyword.
Adwords; Common law trade mark off; Likelihood of confusion; Unlawful competition; Passing