The applicant owned an American Trade Mark in the name ‘Holly Hobbie’. They sought to register the same mark here. Objection was made that the applicant intended to license the use of the mark to others, rather than use it itself, and would this be trafficking in the mark.
Held: The appeal against refusal of registration failed. The intended trade would not seek to identify the mark with its owner, but rather to make money from mere ownership of the mark by licensing its use to third parties unconnected with the applicant. This would be an abuse of the trade mark system. The mere attempt to seek quality control over the goods was not enough to remove the suspicion of trafficking.
Judges:
Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman, Lord Bridge of Harwich and Lord Brightman
Citations:
[1984] 1 WLR 189, [1984] 1 All ER 426, (1984) 1 IPR 486
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Bowden Wire Ltd v Bowden Brake Co Ltd 1914
Trade Marks . .
Applied – In re J Batt and Co ‘s Trade Marks ChD 1898
The applicant had registered a large number of trade marks, had offered many of them for sale, had never traded in the relevant goods and declined to submit to cross-examination.
Held: To justify registration, there had to be: ‘some definite . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.174755