possibility of confusion over marks on medicinal
products because the potential harm may be far
more dire than that in a confusion over ordinary
consumer products”
Where composite trade mark comprises
different distinctive element
In the case of composite marks comprised of two or
more distinctive elements, it will often be difficult
to determine that any one of those elements is
dominant. For example in ‘Alexander Morgan’,
where both elements contribute roughly equally to
the origin identification message sent by the
composite sign, which therefore depends upon the
presence of both elements. Accordingly, the view is
that the all the marks consisting of ‘Alexander’ or
‘Morgan’ will not be conflicting with the mark
comprised of the full name, even if the respective
goods are the same. The same principle is
recognized in Section 17(1) of the Act which enacts
that the mark must be considered as a whole.
However if prominent and distinctive portion of a
two trademarks are identical, earlier mark may be
regarded as conflicting with later mark. For
example CROCIN PLUS may be conflicting with
CROCIN FORTE for medicines.
It is possible for a word to be subsumed within a
multiple slogan mark even though the words do not
combine to form a totality with an obvious
meaning. For example, it would be difficult to say
that the word ‘targets’ has an independent and
distinctive role in the composite mark ‘Fashion
Week Targets Friday’ (for clothing). Consequently,
it is not likely that it would be held to be in conflict
with the mark ‘Targets’ (again assuming same
goods) because it is not the dominant element of
that mark, and neither is it an independent and
distinctive element of the composite mark.
Accordingly the trademark ‘targets’ should not be
cited as conflicting with the trademark ‘Fashion
Week Targets Friday’ (for clothing).
In a different case e.g. the mark CAREAID is
included in a two word composite mark such as
SPINESPAN CAREAID (for medical services)
where the two elements would appear to the
consumer to be a) normally distinctive, and b)
entirely independent of each other. If the respective
goods/services are also identical, it is quite likely
that the relevant consumer will assume that the