TY - JOUR
AU - ,
AB - When applying Art. 5 of the Dutch Trade Name Act (TNA), no requirements beyond those mentioned in that provision are imposed if the earlier trade name invoked is (to any extent) descriptive or devoid of distinctive character.The assessment of likelihood of (direct or indirect) confusion on the part of the relevant public must take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the degree of distinctive character of the earlier trade name, whether this distinctive character is inherent in the name or acquired through its reputation with the public.Article 5 TNA does not cover a dispute between a user of a trade name and a user of a domain name, or a dispute between users of domain names insofar as these domain names are not simultaneously used as trade names. In such cases, Art. 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code can offer protection against subsequent use of the same name or one that is only slightly different if such use causes confusion.In the context of an action in tort, if there is no likelihood of confusion, subsequent use of the same name or one that is only slightly different will not be unlawful on that ground, with the result that it is no longer relevant whether there any other additional circumstances. If there is a likelihood of confusion, then other additional circumstances will be necessary in order for subsequent use of the same name or one that is only slightly different to be considered unlawful. 
TI - “DOC”
JF - IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
DO - 10.1007/s40319-021-01121-2
DA - 2021-10-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/doc-1bTK3u4KOn
SP - 1275
EP - 1281
VL - 52
IS - 9
DP - DeepDyve
ER -