The IPKat has reason to take a look at the classic trade mark confusion case of Canon today. In doing so, he noticed that an important amendment has been made to the test of similarity of goods spelled out by the ECJ. It has been noted that, in translating the decision originally, an error was made and instead of reading "intended purpose" [of the goods] a term in the original German was mistranlated as "end users". The relevant paragraph now reads
In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, as the
French and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission have pointed out, all
the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be
taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their end
users [should read intended purpose] and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. [Emphasis added by the IPKat]
The IPKat notes that this alteration follows a Board of Appeal decision noting this mistranslation. Of course, the reports on the Curia website are not authoritive. Only the official series of reports is. The IPKat wonders what the effect of such a change is if the official reports are not also duly amended.