Do the decisions in L’Oreal and intel concerning infringement of trademarkscontradict each other?

It is submitted that the general approach of trademark protection might not be suitable for well-known marks, as consumers might be confused even if the sign is not similar to the protected well-known mark. Thus, many international agreements such as Paris convention provide additional protection for famous marks. This wide protection could be seen in Puma v Sabel when the European court of justice (ECJ) held that the “likelihood of confusion” could be considered as a violation of trademark law. This means that consumers were not totally confused, but they make a connection between the sign and the mark, and that confused them. The court also held that if the public makes a link between the mark and the sign, even if it does not confuse them, the link is considered a likely cause of confusion. This wide approach, however, seems to be refuted after Intel Case, as the ECJ held that merely a link is not sufficient to gain protection. Rather it requires famous mark holders to prove that damage has occurred because of the link through changes in consumers’ behaviours. It means that being a famous mark no longer grants wide protection after this case. In L’Oreal case, the ECJ seems to contradict itself again and adopt a wide approach of protecting famous marks and held that automatic protection shall be given to famous marks, even if there was no confusion or harm in relation to unfair advantage (free riding). This means that unfair advantage is sufficient for gaining automatic protection without proof, which is contrary to the approach held in the Intel case. It then could be argued that the decisions in L’Oreal and Intel contradicts in their approach of protecting well-known marks as the former provides a wide approach of protection while the latest provides a narrow one.