Philippe then discussed the findings of the British Brand Group research on parasitic copying, together with further Dutch research on consumer perceptions of different degrees of imitation.  What can be done to combat copycats?  Ensuring that your consumers are highly familiar with your products is probably the most important thing to do, irrespective of one's legal options.  Philippe also touched upon some recent ECJ rulings, the scope of which is none too clear. 

Taking over from Philippe was a double act between Roland Mallinson (Taylor Wessing) and Andreas Lubberger (Lubberger - Lehment), with Roland performing an alarmingly persuasive devil's advocate role in advancing the case in favour of lookalikes. Andreas sought skilfully to counter his case and both sides came out on top -- Andreas won our brains while Roland won our hearts.  In short, Roland emphasised the notion that similarity need not lead to confusion and is not synonymous with it; additionally, owners of lookalike brands want to retain the identity of their own versions in order to develop and exploit them further.  Andreas was having none of this: reputation, not confusion, is the critical issue to consider here.  Citing Bellure, he explained how European law recognises protection of the reputation of an earlier mark even where no confusion exists.   A further bone of contention was the comparative advertising directive which, following ECJ interpretation, can work favourably for the original brand owner -- but which the lookalike defendant is advised not to raise in his defence since it is an implicit concession that its product invites any comparison.  The two duellists cited cases, examples, statistics and a wealth of arguments in support of their respective positions.  If nothing else, they showed that, while the relevant legal principles -- if sometimes unclear -- are beyond dispute, their application to any set of facts can be as controversial as the gulf in moral perspectives that separates the two sides.