Recognising and evaluating the target market that a product or service is aimed at, can be a material factor at play in determining whether a trade mark constitutes a third-party infringement or not.
The High Court of Zimbabwe recently handed down a comprehensive judgment in a matter concerning trade marks filed in Zimbabwe that comprise of English transliterations of the corresponding Chinese brand names as applied to tobacco products, including cigarettes. The marks in dispute were essentially as follows:
JINLONG ?? | JINHUANG ?? |
One of the critical issues at play in determining whether or not an infringement had transpired was by identifying who the target market of the products was.
Given that it was established that Chinese speaking consumers of tobacco products were the primary target market for both parties’ products, the weight applied to the conceptual differences in meaning as between the trade marks in dispute was more pronounced
To a purely English-speaking consumer, who may regard the above marks as invented words with no meaning, an argument could be made that there are visual similarities as between the above marks given the above common prefix “JIN” and the “NG” at the concluding end of the mark. However, a Chinese speaking consumer would interpret the above marks as meaning:
JINLONG ?? “Zimbabwean Dragon” | JINHUANG ?? “Zimbabwean King” |
which have notably different meanings and connotations. Whilst the visual and phonetic differences are significant, they are almost outweighed by the more prominent conceptual divide, better understood by the respective target market.
The Honourable Justice Manzunzu stated in his judgement of 9 January 2020:
“The prefix "JIN" causes no confusion when it is used in combination with another mark like "HUANG" or "LONG". Such suffixes make the marks sufficient to distinguish them from each other and sufficiently distinctive so as to negate the likelihood of deception and confusion among the members of the public and in particular the Chinese community.”
KISCH IP assisted with this case in Zimbabwe where a favourable outcome was achieved for its client. At the date of writing this article, no appeal had been filed by the unsuccessful party.
