A trade mark must be ‘distinctive’, it must be recognisable by a buyer of goods to which it has been affixed as indicating that they are of the same origin as other goods which bear the mark and whose quality has engendered goodwill. Trade Marks legislation must be understood in its historical context. To understand … Continue reading GE Trade Mark: HL 1973
Section 11 raises a matter between the applicant and the public, and therefore any member of the public can rely on it. Judges: Lord Macnaghten Citations: (1890) 7 RPC 311 Statutes: Trade Marks Registration Act 1875 11 Cited by: Cited – Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik; Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch CA … Continue reading Re Dunn’s Trade Mark: 1890
Citations: [1970] RPC 339 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd ChD 1969 A form of co-branding was held to be non-deceptive. Grahame J said: ‘The registered use provisions are permissive only and not a compulsory prerequisite for retention of validity of the mark and that, … Continue reading General Electric Co v General Electric Co Limited; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark: CA 1970
Lord Diplock said: ‘The common law of trade marks before 1875 The use by manufacturers of distinctive marks upon goods which they had made is of very ancient origin, but legal recognition of trade marks as a species of incorporeal property was first accorded by the Court of Chancery in the first half of the … Continue reading General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark: HL 1972
In respect of trade marks which were in use before the 1875 Act but in respect of which registration had been refused, the common law action for infringement of the unregistered mark continued: ‘if the proprietor of a trade mark in use before the passing of the principal Act has been refused registration, he may, … Continue reading Orr Ewing v Registrar of Trade Marks: HL 1879
Registration of a distinctive Internet domain name using registered trade marks and company names could be an infringement of a registered Trade Mark, and also passing off. It was proper to grant quia timet injunctions where necessary to stop registration: ‘a jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief where a defendant is equipped with or is intending … Continue reading British Telecommunications Plc; Virgin Enterprises Ltd; J Sainsbury Plc; Marks and Spencer Plc and Ladbroke Group Plc v One In a Million Ltd and others: CA 23 Jul 1998
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Lord Tomlin considered how the Registrar of Tade Marks should exercise his discretion as to potentially confusing trade marks: ‘In my opinion, when once the two factors, viz., the previous registration of the Appellants’ mark and the Respondents’ knowledge of the Appellants’ mark have fallen into their right perspective, the case becomes easy of decision … Continue reading Pirie’s Application: 1933
Lawrence LJ said: ‘The cases to which I have referred (and there are others to the like effect) show that it was firmly established at the time when the Act of l875 was passed that a trader acquired a right of property in a distinctive mark merely . .
A form of co-branding was held to be non-deceptive. Grahame J said: ‘The registered use provisions are permissive only and not a compulsory prerequisite for retention of validity of the mark and that, provided the conditions of control are adequate, there is no reason for holding by using the mark without a registered user the … Continue reading General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd: ChD 1969
The claimant asserted that the defendant had infringed its goodwill in the name ‘Hot Picks’ the defendant argued that it was licensed to use the mark by the person who applied for its registration as a trade mark, and that the claim in passing off arose from the defendant’s own illegal act, and should be … Continue reading Inter Lotto (UK) Limited v Camelot Group Plc: ChD 6 Jun 2003
Passing off actions remained unaffected by the passing of the 1875 Act. Citations: (1880) 15 Ch D 181 Statutes: Trade-Marks Registration Act 1875 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Inter Lotto (UK) Limited v Camelot Group Plc ChD 6-Jun-2003 The claimant asserted that the defendant had infringed its goodwill in the name ‘Hot … Continue reading Mitchell v Henry: 1880
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000
The parties had long disputed the use of the trade marks ‘Bud’ and ‘Budweiser’ for their beers. The claimant now said that the defendants had made an abusive registration under the 1994 Act, by requesting a declaration that the registration by the . .