The english translation of the summary is included on Swisslex and legalis only.

Please answer all questions in Part I on the basis of your Group’s current law.

1) What is the current rule/principle in your jurisdiction when assessing similarity between marks when one or both marks are composite trademarks? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) The «Anti-Dissection Rule» is the only rule/principle to adopt.

b) The «Rule of Dominant Feature» is the only rule/principle to adopt.

c) The «Anti-Dissection Rule» is the main rule/principle and the comparison is conducted mainly between the overall impressions of the conflicting trademarks when judging similarity.

d) The «Rule of Dominant Feature» is the main rule/principle and it is more important to compare the conflicting trademarks in respect of their dominant parts.

e) The «Anti-Dissection Rule» and «Rule of Dominant Feature» are equally important rules/principles.

f) Other, please clarify.

e), The «Anti-Dissection Rule» and «Rule of the Dominant Feature» are equally important rules/principles.

The similarity between two signs is determined by the overall impression left on the public. The public generally does not perceive two signs simultaneously. Rather, one perceived sign is compared with the more or less blurred memory of the previously perceived other sign. It is therefore necessary to examine the features likely to remain in the imperfect memory of the relevant public.

The overall impression of a trademark is primarily influenced by its dominant elements. In general, the distinctive elements have a stronger influence on the overall impression. Elements that are weak or belong to the public domain may, however, not be excluded from the examination of the similarity of the signs, as they may also influence the overall impression (see also the answer to Question 2). Each element must therefore be taken into consideration and weighted according to its influence on the overall impression without, however, isolating the elements or dissecting the sign.

2) Is it the case that the non-distinctive element of trademarks is disregarded completely when assessing similarity between the marks in your jurisdiction? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) Yes, it is very much the case.

b) Yes, it is the case but there are exceptions.

c) No, it is not the case.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), No, it is not the case.

For the purposes of this Report, the Swiss Group understands a «non-distinctive element» as an element that is neither inherently distinctive nor has acquired distinctiveness through use.

Non-distinctive elements play a minor role in the assessment of the similarity between trademarks. If two trademarks coincide only in a non-distinctive element, there is no relevant similarity between them. However, non-distinctive elements are not completely disregarded. Completely disregarding non-distinctive elements would lead to a mosaic-like view reduced to individual components and would neglect the interactions of the elements of the mark in the integrated perception of the public as well as the relevant overall impression of the trademark. Instead, the influence of the non-distinctive elements on the overall impression of the trademarks must be assessed. In particular, a common position of non-distinctive elements in, or similar composition or structure of the compared signs may cause or increase a similarity between the signs.

3) Is it possible for a non-distinctive element of a trademark to be viewed as the dominant feature of the mark in your jurisdiction? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) Yes, it is possible but rarely happens.

b) Yes, it is possible and occurs frequently.

c) No, it is excluded by law.

d) Other, please clarify.

a), Yes, it is possible but rarely happens.

A non-distinctive element is typically not the dominant feature of a trademark. Exceptions may apply, for example, in the case of a family or series of trademarks.

4) Does the nature of the non-distinctive element affect its influence on similarity of two trademarks containing the non-distinctive element, in your jurisdiction? For instance, a non-distinctive element which is the generic name of the goods/services may be less relevant in similarity judgment than a non-distinctive element being descriptive of the characteristic of the goods/services in some jurisdictions. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) Yes, the nature of non-distinctive elements makes a difference.

b) No, the nature of non-distinctive elements does not make a difference.

c) Depends on the circumstances – please explain what those circumstances include.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), Depends on the circumstances.

Swiss law generally does not distinguish between different types of non-distinctive elements. However, the Swiss Group considers that the nature of the non-distinctive element may influence the overall impression of a sign. For example, if the non-distinctive element is a generic name of the goods or services, it may have less weight in the assessment of similarity. In contrast, if the non-distinctive element is descriptive of the characteristics or qualities of the goods or services, it may have a greater impact if it leads consumers to think and consider its relation to the distinguishing features of the goods or services. That said, purely descriptive terms may have as little weight in the assessment of similarity as generic names of the goods and services. Therefore, while the nature of non-distinctive elements is a relevant consideration, its significance in the assessment of similarity depends on the specific circumstances of each case and how those elements interact with other factors in the assessment.&cbr;

5) In terms of factors to consider in a trademark registrability context as opposed to a trademark infringement context, are there the same or different factors to consider in your jurisdiction, when assessing trademark similarity involving non-distinctive elements, in the two contexts? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) There are different factors to consider.

b) The same factors are considered.

c) Depends on the circumstances – please explain what those circumstances include.

d) Other, please clarify.

b), The same factors are considered.

6) What factors are considered when judging whether trademarks including non-distinctive elements are considered confusingly similar or otherwise conflicting, in the registrability assessment of the later trademark, in your jurisdiction? Please pick one or more choices from the following list and provide your comments if any:

a) The nature of the non-distinctive elements.

b) The structure of the marks, for instance how severable the distinctive and the non-distinctive parts are and the proportion in size between the distinctive part and the non-distinctive part.

c) The history and use status of the earlier mark.

d) The history and use status of the later mark.

e) The industry field of the concerned marks.

f) The sophistication of the relevant public.

g) The practices and conventions as to the use of the trademark in the market for the relevant goods or services.

h) The relationship between the holders of the two marks.

i) The background and history of the earlier mark holder.

j) The background and history of the later mark holder.

k) The other marks of the earlier mark holder.

l) The other marks of the later mark holder.

m) The perception of the consumer (as to the non-distinctive element).

n) Others, please clarify.

The following factors are considered:

a) If the non-distinctive elements are of a different nature, two signs may be less likely to be found confusingly similar; see also the answer to Question 4;

b) In particular, when non-distinctive elements are found in the same place within a composite trademark, the signs are more likely to be found confusingly similar;

c) To the extent that the history and use status affect the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier mark or the ability of its non-distinctive elements to influence the overall impression of the earlier mark;

e) A trademark or element of a trademark may be perceived differently in different industry fields;

f) Members of the professional or specialised public tend to apply a higher degree of attention and have a better command of the English language and/or technical terms, making it more likely that an element will be perceived as non-distinctive;

g) To the extent that the distinctiveness of a trademark or an element of a trademark may become diluted by the use of similar signs or elements by a significant number of third parties;

k) The distinctiveness of a trademark or an element of a trademark can be strengthened through its use in a family or series of trademarks;

m) The overall impression and the ability of individual elements to influence the overall impression are assessed on the basis of the perception of the relevant public; and

n) Other aspects include the general factors for the assessment of a likelihood of confusion, in particular the similarity of the goods and services, the similarity of the signs, the degree of attention of the relevant public, or the distinctiveness of the earlier mark.

7) What factors are considered when judging whether trademarks including non-distinctive elements are considered confusingly similar or otherwise conflicting in trademark infringement assessment, in your jurisdiction? Please pick one or more choices from the following list and provide your comments if any:

a) The nature of the non-distinctive elements.

b) The structure of the marks, for instance how severable the distinctive and the non-distinctive parts are and the proportion in size between the distinctive part and the non-distinctive part.

c) The history and use status of the registered/common law mark.

d) The history and use status of the suspected infringing mark.

e) The industry field of the concerned marks.

f) The sophistication of the relevant public.

g) The practices and conventions as to the use of the trademark in the market for the relevant goods or services.

h) The relationship between the holders of the two marks.

i) The background and history of the holder of the registered/common law mark.

j) The background and history of the alleged infringer.

k) The other marks of the holder of the registered/common law mark.

l) The other marks of the suspected infringer.

m) The perception of the consumer (as to the non-distinctive element).

n) Others, please clarify.

The same factors as in the answer to Question 6 are considered.

8) Is it likely that the trademark (A) in the following scenarios would be viewed as sufficiently dissimilar from the trademark (B), in your jurisdiction​¹?

Scenario 1: a trademark (A) is a combination of an entire earlier mark (B) or a mark similar to an earlier mark (B) and some non-distinctive element(s) when assessing whether the later mark can be registered. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, it is definitely not a straightforward registration.

b) Yes, it is very straightforward.

c) It depends on the non-distinctive element.

d) Other, please clarify.

a), No, it is definitely not a straightforward registration.

In its answers to Question 8, the Swiss Group assumes that the later trademark is registered (Scenarios 1 and 2) or used (Scenarios 3 and 4) for goods and services identical or similar to those of the earlier trademark.

The overall impression is decisive. If a later trademark incorporates an earlier trademark, the two signs are generally found to be similar, unless the earlier trademark is substantially altered so that the overall impression of the later trademark is different. Incorporating an earlier trademark may be permissible if it is merged with other elements in such a way that the earlier trademark loses its individuality and appears only as a subordinate part of the later trademark.

Adding non-distinctive elements to an earlier trademark does not generally result in a different overall impression. Therefore, if a later trademark (A) combines an earlier trademark (B) or a mark similar to an earlier trademark (B) with some non-distinctive elements, the overall impression of the two trademarks generally remains identical or similar, and the later trademark (A) is not sufficiently dissimilar from the earlier trademark (B).

Scenario 2: a trademark (A) consists of the distinctive elements of an earlier mark (B) which also includes some non-distinctive element(s) when assessing whether the later mark can be registered. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, it is definitely not a straightforward registration.

b) Yes, it is very straightforward.

c) It depends on the nature of the earlier mark.

d) Other, please clarify.

a), No, it is definitely not a straightforward registration.

The overall impression is decisive. If an earlier trademark (B) consists of distinctive and non-distinctive elements and the later trademark (A) takes over the distinctive elements (but not the non-distinctive elements) of the earlier trademark (B), the overall impression of the trademarks generally remains identical or similar, and the later trademark (A) is not sufficiently dissimilar from the earlier trademark (B).

Scenario 3: in a trademark infringement action, a trademark (A)​² used by another party is a combination of a protected earlier mark (B) or a mark similar to a protected earlier mark (B) and some non-distinctive element(s). Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, it is definitely not a straightforward infringement case.

b) Yes, it is very straightforward.

c) It depends on the nature of all marks/signs.

d) Other, please clarify.

b), Yes, it is very straightforward.

The same answer as in Scenario 1 applies.

Scenario 4: in a trademark infringement action, a trademark (A)​³ used by another party consists of the distinctive elements of a protected earlier mark (B) or a mark similar to a protected earlier mark (B) which also includes some non-distinctive element(s). Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, it is definitely not a straightforward infringement case.

b) Yes, it is very straightforward.

c) It depends on the nature of all marks/signs.

d) Other, please clarify.

b), Yes, it is very straightforward.

The same answer as in Scenario 2 applies.

9) Is it likely that the trademarks in the following scenarios would be found to be similar marks, in your jurisdiction^​4?

Scenario 1: two trademarks share the same or very similar non-distinctive element but with different distinctive elements when assessing whether the later mark can be registered. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, the case law does not support a finding that they are similar.

b) Yes, the case law would support a finding of similarity.

c) It depends on the nature of the marks.

d) Other, please clarify.

a), No, the case law does not support a finding that they are similar.

The overall impression is decisive. In general, identical or similar non-distinctive elements (combined with different distinctive elements) do not suffice for two trademarks to be found sufficiently similar (see answer to Question 2).

Scenario 2: In a trademark infringement action, two trademarks share the same or very similar non-distinctive element but contain different distinctive elements. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, the case law does not support a finding that they are similar.

b) Yes, the case law would support a finding of similarity.

c) It depends on the nature of the marks.

d) Other, please clarify

The same answer as in Scenario 1 applies.

10) Do you consider your Group’s current law or practice relating to conflicts between composite trademarks including non-distinctive elements adequate or do you consider that the law should be changed? Please answer YES or NO and explain.

Yes, the Swiss Group considers the Swiss practice relating to conflicts between composite trademarks including non-distinctive elements as adequate. The exclusive rights conferred by a trademark should not extend to non-distinctive elements. However, a margin of discretion should remain for special cases and specific circumstances.

Furthermore, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property has adopted Common Practice No. 5 on Relative Grounds of Refusal – Likelihood of Confusion (impact of non-distinctive/weak components). This has already led to a certain degree of harmonization in this area, which is to be welcomed.

11) As a matter of policy, does your Group believe that it would be better to require each combination of distinctive and non-distinctive elements for which protection is sought to be registered, instead of permitting the «disassembly» of registered marks into elements and protection being given to at least the disassembled distinctive elements? Please explain why the policy is preferred.

It should be possible to register any (overall) distinctive sign. Hence, both policies should be accepted, i.e., it should be possible to register (a variety of) signs consisting of combinations of distinctive and non-distinctive elements, but also signs only consisting of the disassembled distinctive elements. It should be up to the applicant to decide between these policies. Requiring that each combination of distinctive and non-distinctive elements for which protection is sought be registered seems excessive. It could significantly increase the cost of trademark protection, and the trademark registers could become overloaded with trademarks consisting of the same distinctive sign, but each time combined with a different non-distinctive element.

12) Are there any other policy considerations and/or proposals for improvement to your Group’s current law falling within the scope of this Study Question?

Please answer YES or NO and explain.

No.

13) Do you believe that there should be harmonisation in relation to issues regarding conflicts between composite trademarks including non-distinctive elements? Please answer YES or NO.

If YES, please respond to the following questions WITHOUT regard to your Group’s current law or practice.

Even if NO, please address the following questions to the extent your Group considers your Group’s current law or practice could be improved.

Yes.

14) What should be the rule/principle when assessing similarity between composite trademarks? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) The «Anti-Dissection Rule» should be the only rule/principle.

b) The «Rule of Dominant Feature» should be the only rule/principle.

c) The «Anti-Dissection Rule» should be the main rule/principle.

d) The «Rule of Dominant Feature» should be the main rule/principle.

e) The «Anti-Dissection Rule» and «Rule of Dominant Feature» should be equally important rules/principles.

f) Other, please clarify.

e), The «Anti-Dissection Rule» and «Rule of Dominant Feature» should be equally important rules/principles.

A comparison of the overall impression left by the two trademarks in the imperfect memory of the relevant public should be decisive. For determining the overall impression, a composite trademark should be considered as a whole and not dissected into its constituent parts, because that is not how trademarks are perceived or recalled. Different elements of a composite mark may contribute differently to its overall impression. In general, the more distinctive an element is, the stronger its influence on the overall impression should be. Distinctive elements should generally have a stronger or dominant influence on the overall impression, as they are the main elements that remain in the memory of the relevant public. Distinctive elements should therefore in general be more decisive when assessing similarity between two trademarks. By contrast, weak or non-distinctive elements should have a lesser influence, if any at all, on the overall impression.

15) Should the non-distinctive element of trademarks be disregarded completely when assessing similarity between the marks? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) Yes.

b) Yes except where justified (please clarify when it would be justified).

c) No.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), No.

Non-distinctive elements should not be completely disregarded when assessing similarity between two trademarks. To do so would result in a mosaic-like view of the trademarks, which is not how trademarks are perceived or recalled. Non-distinctive elements may influence the overall impression of a composite trademark. However, their influence on the overall impression should in general be less than that of distinctive elements.

16) Should it be possible for a non-distinctive element of a trademark to be viewed as the dominant feature of the mark? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) Yes, but it should only be possible in exceptional cases – if so, please explain what can be such exceptional cases.

b) Yes, it should be possible in non-exceptional cases.

c) No, it should not be possible.

d) Other, please clarify.

a), Yes, but it should only be possible in exceptional cases.

In general, a non-distinctive element should not dominate the overall impression left by a composite trademark. However, in exceptional cases, for example, where the non-distinctive element is used prominently in a series of marks, it should be possible for the non-distinctive element to be viewed as the dominant feature of a trademark, provided that the relevant public perceives and recalls the trademark in this way.

17) Should the nature of the non-distinctive elements affect its influence on the similarity judgement of the conflicting trademarks which contain the said non-distinctive elements? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) Yes, the nature of non-distinctive elements should make a difference.

b) No, the nature of non-distinctive elements should not make a difference.

c) Depends on the circumstances – please explain what those circumstances include.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), Depends on the circumstances.

Different non-distinctive elements may have a different influence on the overall impression of a trademark, for example, depending on their relevance to the goods and services in question. Therefore, it is not the nature of the non-distinctive elements per se that should make a difference, but their impact on the overall impression.

18) In terms of factors to consider in a trademark registrability context as opposed to a trademark infringement context, should there the same or different factors to consider, when assessing trademark similarity involving non-distinctive elements in the two contexts? Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) There should be different factors to consider.

b) The same factors should be considered.

c) Depends on the circumstances – please explain what those circumstances include.

d) Other, please clarify.

b), The same factors should be considered.

19) In the assessment of registrability of a later trademark, what factors should be considered when judging whether trademarks including non-distinctive elements are considered confusingly similar or otherwise conflicting? Please pick one or more choices from the following list and provide your comments if any:

a) The nature of the non-distinctive elements.

b) The structure of the marks, for instance how severable the distinctive and the non-distinctive parts are and the proportion in size between the distinctive part and the non-distinctive part.

c) The history and use status of the earlier mark.

d) The history and use status of the later mark.

e) The industry field of the concerned marks.

f) The sophistication of the relevant public.

g) The practices and conventions as to the use of trademarks in the market for the relevant goods or services.

h) The relationship between the holders of the two marks.

i) The background and history of the earlier mark holder.

j) The background and history of the later mark holder.

k) The other marks of the earlier mark holder.

l) The other marks of the later mark holder.

m) The perception of the consumer (as to the non-distinctive element).

n) Others, please clarify.

In particular, the following factors should be considered: a), b), c), e), f), g), k), and m).

20) In the assessment of trademark infringement, what factors should be considered when judging whether trademarks including non-distinctive elements are considered confusingly similar or otherwise conflicting? Please pick one or more choices from the following list and provide your comments if any:

a) The nature of the non-distinctive elements.

b) The structure of the marks, for instance how severable the distinctive and the non-distinctive parts are and the proportion in size between the distinctive part and the non-distinctive part.

c) The history and use status of the registered/common law mark.

d) The history and use status of the suspected infringing mark.

e) The industry field of the relevant marks.

f) The sophistication of the relevant public.

g) The practices and conventions as to the use of trademarks in the market for the relevant goods or services

h) The relationship between the holders of the two marks.

i) The background and history of the holder of the registered/common law mark.

j) The background and history of the suspected infringer.

k) The other marks of the holder of the registered/common law mark.

l) The other marks of the suspected infringer.

m) The perception of the consumer (as to the non-distinctive element).

n) Others, please clarify

In particular, the following factors should be considered: a), b), c), e), f), g), k), and m).

21) Should trademark (A) in the following scenarios be viewed as sufficiently dissimilar from the trademark (B)?

Scenario 1: a trademark (A) is a combination of an entire earlier mark (B) or a mark similar to an earlier mark (B) and some non-distinctive element(s) when assessing whether the later mark can be registered. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, it should definitely not be registered.

b) Yes, it should be the case in all but exceptional situations.

c) Yes, it should be but only in exceptional cases.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), Yes, it should be but only in exceptional cases.

In its answers to Question 21, the Swiss Group assumes that the later trademark is registered (Scenarios 1 and 2) or used (Scenarios 3 and 4) for goods and services identical or similar to those of the earlier trademark.

The overall impression of the two trademarks should be decisive. In general, if a later trademark (A) is a combination of a trademark identical or similar to an earlier trademark (B) and some non-distinctive elements, the overall impression of the trademarks remains identical or similar, and the later trademark (A) should not be viewed as sufficiently dissimilar from the earlier trademark (B). Only in exceptional cases should adding non-distinctive elements to an earlier (or to a trademark similar to an earlier) trademark (B) be considered to change the overall impression of the later trademark (A) in such a way that the earlier trademark (B) is not recalled when perceiving the later trademark (A).

Scenario 2: a trademark (A) consists of the distinctive elements of an earlier mark (B) which also includes some non-distinctive element(s) when assessing whether the later mark can be registered. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, it should definitely not be registered.

b) Yes, it should be the case in all but exceptional situations.

c) Yes, it should be but only in exceptional cases.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), Yes, it should be but only in exceptional cases.

The overall impression of the two trademarks should be decisive. In general, if an earlier trademark (B) consists of distinctive and non-distinctive elements and a later trademark (A) takes over the distinctive elements (but not the non-distinctive elements) of the earlier trademark (B), the overall impression of the trademarks remains identical or similar, and the later trademark (A) should not be viewed as sufficiently dissimilar from the earlier trademark (B). Only in exceptional cases should adding non-distinctive elements to the distinctive elements of an earlier trademark (B) be considered to change the overall impression of the later trademark (A) in such a way that the earlier trademark (B) is not recalled when perceiving the later trademark (A).

Scenario 3: in a trademark infringement action, a trademark (A)​⁵ used by another party is a combination of a protected earlier mark (B) or a mark similar to a protected earlier mark (B) and some non-distinctive element(s). Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, the unregistered mark should definitely not be determined to be dissimilar.

b) Yes, the unregistered mark should be determined to be dissimilar in all but exceptional cases.

c) Yes, the unregistered mark should be determined to be dissimilar only in exceptional cases.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), Yes, the unregistered mark should be determined to be dissimilar only in exceptional cases.

The same answer as in Scenario 1 should apply.

Scenario 4: in a trademark infringement action, a trademark (A)​⁶ used by another party consists of the distinctive elements of a protected earlier mark (B) which also includes some non-distinctive element(s). Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, the unregistered trademark should definitely not be determined to be dissimilar.

b) Yes, the unregistered trademark should be determined to be dissimilar in all but exceptional cases.

c) Yes, the unregistered trademark should be determined to be dissimilar only in exceptional cases.

c), Yes, the unregistered trademark should be determined to be dissimilar only in exceptional cases.

The same answer as in Scenario 2 should apply.

22) Should the trademarks in the following scenarios be found to be similar marks?

Scenario 1: two trademarks share the same or very similar non-distinctive element but with different distinctive elements when assessing whether the later mark can be registered. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, they should definitely not be determined to be similar.

b) Yes, they should be determined to be similar in all but exceptional cases.

c) Yes, they should be determined to be similar only in exceptional cases.

d) Other, please clarify.

c), Yes, they should be determined to be similar only in exceptional cases.

In general, sharing the same or similar non-distinctive elements should not suffice for a finding that two composite trademarks are sufficiently similar. However, a margin of discretion should remain to account for special circumstances.

Scenario 2: In a trademark infringement action, two trademarks share the same or very similar non-distinctive element but contain different distinctive elements. Please pick one of the following choices and provide your comments if any:

a) No, they should definitely not be determined to be similar.

b) Yes, they should be determined to be similar in all but exceptional cases.

c) Yes, they should be determined to be similar only in exceptional cases.

d) Other, please clarify.

The same answer as in Scenario 1 should apply.

23) Please comment on any additional issues concerning any aspect that you consider relevant to this Study Question.

None.

24) Please indicate which industry sector views provided by in-house counsels are included in your Group’s answers to Part III.

None.

Zusammenfassung

Die diesjährige von der AIPPI durchgeführte Studie zum Markenrecht befasst sich mit Konflikten zwischen zusammengesetzten Marken, die sowohl kennzeichnungskräftige als auch nicht kennzeichnungskräftige Elemente beinhalten. Dem Markeninhaber sollten keine Ausschliesslichkeitsrechte an nicht kennzeichnungskräftigen Elementen eingeräumt werden. Dies bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass solche Elemente keinerlei Einfluss auf den Schutzumfang haben. Die sich dabei stellenden Fragen werden im vorliegenden Beitrag aus Perspektive des Schweizer Rechts untersucht.

Résumé

Cette année, l’étude de l’AIPPI sur le droit des marques porte sur les conflits ente des marques composées qui contiennent à la fois des éléments distinctifs et non distinctifs. Une marque ne devrait pas conférer des droits exclusifs sur des éléments non distinctifs. Cependant, cela ne signifie pas que ces éléments n’ont aucune influence sur le champ de protection. Les questions qui se posent à cet égard sont examinées dans le présent article du point de vue du droit suisse

Fussnoten:

1	In a jurisdiction where absolute ground [rather: relative ground] examination is not conducted in the registration application stage, one may refer to the scenario of an opposition or invalidation.
2	In those jurisdictions in which having a registration for a trademark is per se a sufficient and valid defence against infringement claims, please consider that trademark (A) is not the subject of a registration or application.
3	In those jurisdictions in which having a registration for a trademark is per se a sufficient and valid defence against infringement claims, please consider that trademark (A) is not the subject of a registration or application.
4	In a jurisdiction where absolute ground [rather: relative ground] examination is not conducted in the registration application stage, one may refer to the scenario of an opposition or invalidation.
5	In those jurisdictions in which having a registration for a trademark is per se a sufficient and valid defence against infringement claims, please consider that trademark (A) is not the subject of a registration or application.
6	In those jurisdictions in which having a registration for a trademark is per se a sufficient and valid defence against infringement claims, please consider that trademark (A) is not the subject of a registration or application.