Facebook, Inc. v. Brand IP Licensing Limited

Article 8(5) even if admittedly some of the contested goods and services were dissimilar to the earlier reputed services, the gap between them is not so large and that consequently there existed prima facie a possibility that the contested mark would remind the relevant consumers of the earlier marks 2-6. There is a high probability that the use of the contested mark for the relevant services which, as observed, can be connected either directly or indirectly to the field of social networking, may lead to freeriding, that is to say, it would take unfair advantage of the well-established reputation of the earlier trade marks and the considerable investment undertaken by the opponent to achieve that reputation. Article 8(1)(b) The fact that the entire earlier mark is included in the contested sign and has an independent distinctive role in its composition may lead the public to believe that the goods and services at issue derive at the very least, from companies which are linked economically, in which case the likelihood of confusion must be held to be established. The presence of the prefix ‘LOVE’ does not influence this finding. The Board is fortified in this conclusion by the observation that the probability of confusion also captures the risk that consumers will assume that the goods at issue will extend from economically-linked undertakings.