Monographs on key aspects of trade mark law are a rare breed. The arrival of Ilanah Fhima and Dev Gangjee's full‐length study of the confusion test in European trade mark law is therefore a moment of joy for all trade mark experts, promising detailed, penetrating analysis by recognised experts in the field. Moreover, the confusion test presents one of the thorniest and most complex issues in European trade mark law. Having started with such high expectations, does the book actually deliver?

There are eight chapters in total, starting with an introduction titled ‘The Likelihood of Confusion’. It is wise not to launch into a detailed analysis of the components of the confusion test without spending some time and effort analysing the central concept. Clarity is essential, since ‘confusion’ arises in two slightly different contexts. For most of us, ‘confusion’ – as legal test or concept – is immediately and inextricably linked to trade mark infringement, but in a second sense it also pertains to the relative grounds for refusing to register a trade mark. These two distinct causes of action imply nuanced applications of the concept of confusion. This introductory chapter appropriately distinguishes between them, framing the analysis within the broader context of general rationales for trade mark protection and some consideration of what the future may bring for the concept of confusion.

Having properly calibrated the conceptual microscope, analysis turns to the individual components of the confusion test in European trade mark law. The first component is that of similarity. The confusion test is engaged when either the sign that is applied for or that is allegedly infringing is similar to the registered trade mark or when the goods or services are similar. Chapter 2 logically turns to the similarity of marks. The first task is to distinguish between aural, visual and conceptual similarity and to consider which dimension is most important. Visual similarity between the sign and the mark, aural or phonetic similarity and, finally, conceptual similarity are addressed in turn, exemplifying one of the book's major strengths. All too often scholarly articles and (text‐)books limit themselves to syntheses illustrated with just one or two examples. By contrast, these authors have undertaken exhaustive analysis of the seemingly endless EU Court of Justice and the General Court jurisprudence, augmented where needed by relevant UK cases. Rather than highlighting a couple of examples, their analysis works its way through dozens of interesting illustrations of the various points and concepts that the courts have relied on to decide whether there is visual, aural or conceptual similarity between the sign and the mark. As Ilanah Fhima intimates in her acknowledgments, the publisher must have been concerned by the sheer volume of material. But there is tangible value for the reader in being taken through a succession of real examples in a structured way in coming to understand and appreciate the approaches developed by the courts. The minefield of confusing similarity between the sign and the mark is defused and the overall jurisprudential picture becomes a lot clearer. To give just a couple of indications, in relation to aural and phonetic similarity the journey through the examples clarifies the strength of emphasis on common beginnings, how that is balanced or influenced by the presence of other factors pointing towards similarity or dissimilarity, and the impact of device marks or descriptive elements. In relation to conceptual similarity the journey through the examples clarifies the impact and the value of, for example, foreign and obscure terms and graphical elements, and what is the appropriate level of abstraction in this respect. Such clarifications are already more than enough benefit to encourage specialist readers; albeit they should anticipate a fairly slow read, as the pages are packed with detailed recapitulations of the conceptual nuances and marginally different approaches which characterise this topic. Chapter 3 introduces further complications by examining composite marks, and exploring whether they should be assessed holistically, in terms of their dominant element, or by reference to a distinctive element? Once more, multiple examples are put to best use to guide the reader through these additional layers of complexity.

With that, the book leaves behind the complexity of the similarity between signs and marks and moves on to goods and services, opening up a new debate. A first thorny issue tackled in Chapter 4 is the distinction between identical and similar goods and services. Once that distinction has been clarified, critical analysis is trained on what has become known as the Canon test, as developed by the CJEU, for this purpose. The authors rely once more on an abundance of caselaw examples to clarify the fine distinctions that may arise in trade mark disputes. Chapter 5 follows up by analysing the salience of the distinctiveness of the marks. The starting point is the rather controversial way in which the CJEU dealt with the role of distinctiveness in assessing likelihood of confusion. Is there an empirical basis for the assumption that a higher level of distinctiveness leads to an enhanced likelihood of confusion, or is it rather the case that very distinctive marks are better remembered by end users and thus present a reduced likelihood of confusion? Once that discussion is broached one needs to distinguish between distinctiveness for infringement and distinctiveness for registrability purposes. With these conceptual issues neutralised, the book reverts to its primary strength of distinguishing in detail between a range of practical scenarios. Inherently distinctive marks, descriptive marks, weak and allusive marks, and marks with acquired distinctiveness are systematically considered, with multiple illustrations on the established pattern.

Chapters 6 and 7 turn to the more practical components of the test for confusion. Chapter 6 deals with assessing the likelihood of confusion. The key concept here is ‘the average consumer’, but the chapter also discusses the normative standard involved in this global assessment and practical issues of proof. Chapter 7 adds in the element of timing. The two burning issues of temporal sequencing are the potential place for, and role of, initial interest confusion and post‐sale confusion, respectively. All seven chapters are highly informative and a treasure trove of caselaw illustrations for any reader interested in European trade mark law. Whilst we may try to keep up with the burgeoning caselaw, placing new CJEU decisions in the overall structural framework is not always easy and some judgments seemingly lack clarity and coherence. Be that as it may, by systematically organising all these cases into a rational framework and by taking the reader step by step through each stage of the analysis this book makes a major contribution to critical understanding of the Court's jurisprudence.

With the benefit of multiple examples to support the analysis, the reader discerns a backbone structure and the sometimes small or marginal differences in judicial approaches become more visibly distinct. Much as I admire this treatment, it comes with limitations. Chapters 2 to 4 of this monograph have a tendency to fall into the trap of becoming overly descriptive. There is a lot of very valuable material on offer, but the reader gets the impression that more could have been done with it, in terms of fuller contextualisation and critical analysis. Chapters 5 to 7 are superior in this regard, but still pass up the opportunity for further elucidation. More extensive treatment might have extended the length of the book by another 100 pages or more (possibly not to the publisher's delight) but would have added significant value. As it is, a bright picture is drawn, but the potential for more light and shade through in‐depth analysis has not been fully realized.

The chapters contain frequent references to US trade mark law, but these are mere stubs. Full‐scale comparative analysis is eschewed. Differences between European and US trade mark law are not elucidated in a way that would enable readers to derive maximum benefit from comparative analysis and perspectives. Compounded by the absence of context, explanation and in‐depth criticism, these descriptively dense chapters are at times hard to read. They require concerted effort to make sure the reader gets all the details right and can properly follow the analytical narrative. Overall, the monograph is markedly Anglo‐Saxon in orientation and content, despite its title promising an analysis of the confusion test in European trade mark law. It is entirely logical that the abundant caselaw of the CJEU and General Court should comprise the authors’ main focus, augmented by relevant decisions of the EUIPO (formerly OHIM). Whilst that is a facially credible approach, it overlooks the quite significant contribution of the national courts in the Member States. Domestic judges deal with the vast majority of cases without needing referrals to the EU courts. Admittedly, referrals are made on the controversial and difficult points, but at least the application of the key principles emerging from the case law of the EU Courts is worth examining from the broader perspective of Member States’ domestic jurisprudence. With only one or two exceptions, this book ignores references other than those from UK courts, with the result that UK case law is afforded greater prominence than seems justified. There are interesting and valuable cases adjudicated in all the Member States: surely not all UK decisions, especially these at Appointed Person level, are to be taken as gospel. Chapter 8 is a nice present in this regard. Not only does it deal with the relatively neglected topic of non‐traditional marks, but, quite refreshingly, it does so by including appropriate references to cases in other Member States. In that sense this chapter is perhaps a more valuable terminus than any attempt to present an overall, synthetic conclusion to the book.

Let these points of criticism not detract from the overall value of this monograph. The confusion test is a focal point, or should one say central difficulty, in European trade mark law. Unravelling it over 250 pages is a major contribution, as is the successful collation and organisation of a massive case law often lacking structure or analytical coherence. This monograph is, in other words, essential reading for all those who work in this field and it deserves a prominent place on our bookshelves.

有关商标法关键方面的专着是稀有品种。因此，Ilanah Fhima和Dev Gangjee对欧洲商标法中的混淆测试进行全长研究的到来，对于所有商标专家来说都是一个喜悦的时刻，他们希望得到该领域公认专家的详尽，深入的分析。而且，混淆测试提出了欧洲商标法中最棘手，最复杂的问题之一。从如此高的期望开始，这本书真的可以交付吗？

总共有八章，从标题为“混乱的可能性”的介绍开始。明智的做法是，不花一些时间和精力分析中心概念，就开始对混淆测试的各个组成部分进行详细的分析。清晰是必不可少的，因为“混乱”发生在两个略有不同的环境中。对于我们大多数人来说，“混淆”（作为法律检验或概念）与商标侵权直接且密不可分地联系在一起，但从第二个意义上讲，它也与拒绝注册商标的相对理由有关。这两种不同的作用原因暗示了混淆概念的细微应用。本介绍性章节适当地区分了它们，

在正确校准概念显微镜之后，分析将转向欧洲商标法中混淆测试的各个组成部分。第一个组成部分是相似性。当申请的标志或涉嫌侵权的标志与注册商标相似或商品或服务相似时，将进行混淆测试。第2章从逻辑上转向商标的相似性。第一项任务是区分听觉，视觉和概念上的相似性，并考虑哪个维度最重要。标志和商标之间的视觉相似性，听觉或语音上的相似性，以及最后的概念上的相似性，依次得到解决，这是该书的主要优势之一。很多学术文章和（文字）书都局限于仅用一个或两个例子说明的综合。相比之下，这些作者对看似无止境的欧盟法院和普通法院的判例进行了详尽的分析，并在相关英国案件需要的地方进行了补充。他们的分析并没有突出几个示例，而是通过数十个有趣的插图说明了法院所依据的各个要点和概念，以决定标志和商标之间是否存在视觉，听觉或概念上的相似性。当Ilanah Fhima致谢时，出版商一定会对大量的材料感到担忧。但是，通过以结构化的方式通过一系列真实的例子来理解和欣赏法院制定的方法，对于读者来说具有切实的价值。标志和标记之间相似性令人困惑的雷区被消除了，整个法理学的图景变得更加清晰。仅给出一些说明，关于听觉和语音上的相似性，通过示例的过程阐明了强调共同点的力量，如何通过指向相似性或不相似性的其他因素的存在来平衡或影响这种相似性以及影响设备标记或描述性元素的集合。关于概念上的相似性，通过示例进行的旅程阐明了例如外来和晦涩的术语和图形元素的影响和价值，在这方面抽象的适当级别是什么？这样的澄清已经足以鼓励专业读者了。尽管他们应该预料到阅读速度会很慢，因为这些页面上充斥着对概念细微差别的详细概述以及表征该主题的不同方法。第3章通过检查复合标记，并探讨是否应从其主要成分或整体特征的角度对它们进行整体评估，从而进一步引入复杂性？再一次，可以充分利用多个示例来指导读者理解这些额外的复杂性层。尽管他们应该预料到阅读速度会很慢，因为这些页面上充斥着对概念细微差别的详细概述以及表征该主题的不同方法。第3章通过检查复合标记，并探讨是否应从其主要成分或整体特征的角度对它们进行整体评估，从而进一步引入复杂性？再一次，可以充分利用多个示例来指导读者理解这些额外的复杂性层。尽管他们应该预料到阅读速度会很慢，因为这些页面上充斥着对概念细微差别的详细概述以及表征该主题的不同方法。第3章通过检查复合标记，并探讨是否应从其主要成分或整体特征的角度对它们进行整体评估，从而进一步引入复杂性？再一次，可以充分利用多个示例来指导读者理解这些额外的复杂性层。还是通过提及独特元素？再一次，可以充分利用多个示例来指导读者理解这些额外的复杂性层。还是通过提及独特元素？再一次，可以充分利用多个示例来指导读者理解这些额外的复杂性层。

这样一来，这本书就消除了标志和标记之间相似性的复杂性，并转移到商品和服务上，引发了新的辩论。第四章处理的第一个棘手问题是相同和相似商品和服务之间的区别。一旦明确了区别，就可以对所谓的佳能进行批判分析为此，由CJEU开发的测试。作者再次依靠大量判例法示例来澄清商标纠纷中可能出现的细微差别。第五章通过分析商标独特性的显着性来进行跟进。起点是颇具争议的方式，欧洲法院处理独特性在评估混乱可能性中的作用。是否存在以下假设的经验基础，即较高的独特性会导致混淆的可能性增加，或者是这样的情况，最终用户会更好地记住非常独特的标记，从而减少混淆的可能性？一旦进行了讨论，就需要区分侵权的独特性和可注册性的独特性。消除了这些概念性问题后，该书恢复了其主要优点，即在各种实际情况之间进行详细区分。系统地考虑了固有的独特标记，描述性标记，弱和典故标记以及具有获得性独特性的标记，并在已建立的模式上进行了多次说明。

第6章和第7章介绍了测试中更实际的部分，以防混淆。第6章讨论评估混乱的可能性。这里的关键概念是“普通消费者”，但本章还讨论了此全局评估中涉及的规范标准和实际证明问题。第7章增加了计时元素。时间排序的两个紧迫问题分别是最初的兴趣混淆和售后混淆的潜在位置和作用。对于对欧洲商标法感兴趣的任何读者，所有这七章都非常有用，是判例法插图的宝库。尽管我们可能试图跟上迅速发展的判例法，但将新的CJEU决定置于总体结构框架中并不总是那么容易，而且某些判断似乎缺乏明确性和连贯性。

借助多个示例来支持分析，读者可以辨别出骨干结构，而司法方法中有时很小的或微不足道的差异变得更加明显。我非常欣赏这种治疗方法，但它有局限性。本专着的第2章至第4章倾向于陷入过度描述的陷阱。提供了许多非常有价值的材料，但读者认为，就更全面的上下文环境和批判性分析而言，可以做得更多。在这方面，第5章至第7章比较优越，但仍然忽略了进一步阐明的机会。更广泛的处理可能会使该书的长度再增加100页或更多（可能不会令出版商满意），但会带来巨大的价值。就这样

这些章节经常引用美国商标法，但这些仅仅是存根。避免了全面的比较分析。并未阐明欧美商标法之间的差异，以使读者能够从比较分析和观点中获得最大的收益。由于缺乏上下文，解释和深入的批评，这些描述密集的章节有时很难阅读。他们需要齐心协力，以确保读者正确理解所有细节，并能够正确地遵循分析性叙述。总体而言，该专着在方向和内容上都明显是盎格鲁-撒克逊语，尽管它的标题有望对欧洲商标法中的混淆测试进行分析。完全合理的是，欧洲法院和普通法院的判例法应构成作者的主要重点，通过EUIPO（以前的OHIM）的相关决定加以补充。尽管这是一种表面上可行的方法，但它忽略了会员国国家法院的相当大的贡献。国内法官处理绝大多数案件，而无需转交欧盟法院。诚然，在有争议和困难的问题上进行了转介，但是至少从欧盟国内判例的更广泛角度来看，至少应应用欧盟法院判例法产生的关键原则。除一两个例外外，本书忽略了英国法院以外的其他参考文献，从而导致英国判例法的重要性超出了合理范围。在所有成员国中，都有一些有趣且有价值的案例被裁定：当然不是所有英国决定，尤其是在指定人员级别的这些，应被视为福音。在这方面，第8章是一个不错的礼物。它不仅处理相对被忽视的非传统商标专题，而且令人耳目一新，它通过适当提及其他成员国的案件来处理。从这个意义上讲，本章可能是比任何试图为该书提供全面综合结论的更有价值的终点。

让这些批评的观点不减损本专着的整体价值。混淆测试是欧洲商标法的重点，或者应该说是中心难题。对其展开250页以上的工作是一个重大贡献，成功整理和组织的大型判例法通常缺乏结构或分析的连贯性，也是一个重大贡献。换句话说，这本专着是所有从事该领域工作的人必读的书，在我们的书架上应该占有突出的位置。