A case had been referred to the court as to the interpetation of the articles in the Directive. The court replied asking whether the subsequent Ansul judgement answered the questions raised.
Held: By agreement with the parties, only one of the . .
An application to register a shape as a trade mark, on the basis of the shape only and without association with any other indication, would fail unless some particular element of the shape was driven by more than the need to produce a technical effect. Where an association with a particular shape with the applicant … Continue reading In Re Dualit Trade Mark; Dualit (Toaster Shapes): ChD 19 Jul 1999
IPO The opponent in these proceedings claims to have used the mark ZAM-BUK for ten years prior to the filing of the application in suit. The background to the proceedings is as follows. ZAM-BUK is a traditional antiseptic ointment which was made and sold in the UK for over 100 years. The product was made … Continue reading Zam-Buk Series of 6 (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 21 Oct 2008
Where a sign or name had been used overwhelmingly with a descriptive or technical function, it was not validly registered as a trade mark. Name used in relevant public as an indicator of type not a designator of origin. Citations: Times 18-Dec-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: … Continue reading In Re Trade Mark No 2,023,949: ChD 18 Dec 1998
A Mr David J Quigley had applied to register the marks in suit in October 1999 and registration had been effected in May 2000. In June 2000 the two marks were assigned to Bomar (UK) Ltd, of which Mr Quigley is a director. The applicant for invalidity stated that they had registered identical marks to … Continue reading Bomar/Device Only (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 18 Nov 2003
The applicant had been an employee of the objector at their nightclub ‘Chinawhite’ and whose principal attraction was a cocktail of the same name. Employees signed a confidentiality agreement as to the recipe. Having left the employment, the appellant set up a company with a similar name and applied for the mark ‘CHINA WHITE’. The … Continue reading Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co; Harrison’s Trade Mark Application (CHINAWHITE): CA 27 Jul 2004
Application for registration without evidence of proprietary interest in the name. Citations: Ind Summary 28-Feb-1994 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1938 17(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.83216
The applicants sought registration of the trade mark ‘Reef’ in connection with merchandising activities in classes 25 and 26 arising from their pop group of the same name. The challengers owned a trade mark ‘Reef Brazil’ in class 25 in relation to footwear, and claimed that there was a risk of confusion, and that if … Continue reading South Cone Incorporated v Bessant, Greensmith, House and Stringer (a Partnership) trading as ‘Reef’; REEF Trade Mark: ChD 24 Jul 2001
A business had grown, but the two founders split, and set up separate business. There was no agreement as to the use of the trading names and trade marks. The original law of Trade Marks prohibited bare exclusive licenses, licences excluding the rights of the owner to use the mark, and with no quality control. … Continue reading Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AV and Others and One Other Action: HL 4 Apr 2001
IPO The applicants were proprietors of the Community Trade Mark ‘@@XL pharma’, registered in Classes 3, 5, and 42. The Hearing Officer found that the goods were similar. Both marks had a distinctive character. Having compared the marks, however, and having reviewed the submissions and relevant cases, the Hearing Officer was not persuaded that the … Continue reading Aaxel (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 9 Sep 2003
The shape of a bottle, and patterns impressed on it, were insufficiently distinctive to be registerable as Trade Marks. The distinctiveness is assessed by reference to the object alone, not by reference to the marketing activity surrounding it. Citations: Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Times 17-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 684 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Procter and Gamble Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks: CA 29 Jan 1999
The test for confusion in Trade Marks context is wider than that for passing off. The use of a name which suggested manufacture in Switzerland when there was no connection with Switzerland, was misleading and deceptive and registration as trade mark was to be refused. Citations: Times 20-Jul-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 11 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading In Re ‘Swiss Miss’ Trademark: CA 20 Jul 1998
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
The court considered the nature of use in relation to goods under the 1994 Act, and the Directive: ‘It may well be that the concept of ‘use in relation to goods’ is different for differing purposes. Much may turn on the public conception of the use. For instance, if you buy Kodak film in Boots … Continue reading Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Trade and Barrel Ltd: ChD 25 Jul 2000
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was primarily amongst surfers. The Hearing Officer conducted a ‘multi-factorial’ comparison, and rejected the opposition … Continue reading Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof. Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to statutory exceptions. To place a legal (persuasive) burden of proof on the defendant … Continue reading Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002
[2014] UKIntelP o08014 Bailii Trade Marks Act 1994 England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523940
[2013] UKIntelP o24313 Bailii Trade Marks Act 1994 592)(b) Intellectual Property Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517126
[2014] UKIntelP o28514 Bailii Trade Marks Act 1994 England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.534587
Mark use in search engine was infringing use The claimant mark owner alleged that the defendant, in paying a search engine to use the claimants mark as a search keyword was infringing its rights. The defendant argued that the use of the same sign in different contexts could amount to a different and non-infringing use. … Continue reading Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 21 May 2013
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of Parliamentary privilege. Held: A Defendant may not use libel proceedings to impugn … Continue reading Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd: PC 27 Jun 1994
IPO Ex Parte. . .
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial . .
IPO Trade Mark: Revocation – no use made of the mark by owner. . .
Trade Mark: Rectification . .
The Hearing Officer commented upon the stylization of the mark as advertised – with a lowercase ‘i’ and noted that this appeared to be at odds with the mark depicted on the application form. However, nothing turned on this point and he treated the . .
Trade Mark: Invalidity – allegation that Mark registered here by person faseley purporting to be the agent of the mark holder in the US. . .
Opposition – existing similar mark . .
Interlocutory Hearing in relation to a request by the Applicant for Security of Costs . .
IPO Trade Mark: Opposition – The application was in respect of ‘Eau de toilette, perfume, deodorant’. The opposition was based on registrations of a number of WITCH marks including WITCH DOCTOR and WITCH STIK.
IPO There has been a long running dispute between these two party’s dating back to the early 1980’s. The mark in suit was applied for on 28 June 1989 and was opposed by the current applicant all the way to the . .
At first instance (see BL O/099/06) the application had failed because the applicants had not provided evidence of use of the mark relied on. Following an appeal to the Appointed Person the matter had been remitted to the Registrar for further . .
Interlocutory Hearing re the filing of part of Form 8, Counterstatement and exhibits by way of email
Result
Incomplete documents filed in defence of registration by email: Appeal allowed. Registered Proprietor allowed to defend its . .
IPO Section 3(6): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): – Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): – Opposition failed.
1. Admission of additional evidence. . .
1. Statement of grounds of opposition : scope of the attack.
2. Amendment of pleadings; inherent jurisdiction to allow.
In dealing with the opposition to this application (see BL O/367/04) the Hearing Officer questioned the scope of the . .
IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful.
Section 3(1)(c): – Opposition failed.
Section 3(2)(c): – Not considered.
The opponent in this . .
IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(2) – Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(b) – Opposition successful.
Section 3(1)(c) – Opposition failed.
Section 1(1)(d) – Opposition failed.
Section 3(2)(c) – Not . .
IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful.
Section 3(1)(c): – Opposition failed.
Section 3(2)(c): – Not considered.
The opponent in this . .
IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful.
Section 3(2)(c): Not considered.
The opponent in this case is a German manufacturer of confectionary . .
IPO Request for ‘striking out’: – Request refused. – 1. The Hearing Officer concluded that the Agreement between the parties had been reached on the basis of their trading arrangements at that time and there was . .
IPO Revocation. 1. Partial surrender of registration; effective date.
2. Rule 68(7) : failure to file TM8 rectified as a correction of an irregularity in or before the Office.
At the outset of . .
IPO This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision of 2 April; 2003 (BL O/090/03) in which he decided that the provisions of Rule 13(6) of the Trade Marks Rules 2000 were mandatory and that the . .
PO Trade Marks – Inter Partes Decisions – Opposition – 2211189 . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Trade Marks – Ex Parte Decisions . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
Objection that mark is customary within the trade. . .
IPO The Hearing Officer in the above proceedings found for Continental Shelf 128 Limited. (Decisions dated 17 October 2002 (BL O/424/02 and BL O/425/02). Ms Emanuel appealed to the Appointed Person. Subsequently, . .
IPO Three separate oppositions, not consolidated, but as same issues involved only one decision.
The opponents’ opposition was based on their ownership of registrations in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 of . .
IPO Section 46(1)(a): – Revocation failed.
Section 46(1)(b): – Revocation successful.
1. The Hearing Officer had to decide whether watches made of gold and/or incorporating precious stones were items . .
IPO Section 46(1)(a) – Partial Revocation failed
Section 46(1)(b) – Partial Revocation action (partially successful)
The above registered mark was registered for a range of goods in Class 9 and the . .
IPO The opponent in these proceedings commenced to design and trade in clothing under the name EMANUEL about 1977. A shop was opened in Chelsea in 1986 but due to the breakdown of her marriage the shop closed in . .
IPO In the parallel opposition proceedings (BL O/024/02) which has been reviewed in some detail the Hearing Officer concluded that as Ms Emanuel had assigned rights in this mark together with the goodwill in the . .
Section 3(6) – Opposition succeeded
Section 5(2)(b) – Opposition succeeded against the applicants Class 33 application.
Proprietorship: There must be a proprietor in existence at the date of application.
The opponents owned . .
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition partially successful in respect of Class 12 goods. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.
The opponent relied on a number of prior registrations but these . .
ICO Section 5(2)(b): Invalidity action failed. Section 5(3): Invalidity action failed
Section 5(4)(a): Invalidity action failed. Section 56(2): Invalidity action failed
The applicant in these . .
. .
IPO Opposition based on opponent’s registration of a TWIN CHEF device mark in Class 30. The opposition related to the same application under consideration in SRIS O/186/01, and the opponent relied on largely the . .
IPO Opposition based on opponent’s various registrations (Community and UK) of a TWIN CHEFS device mark in Classes 29, 30 and 32. In regard to opposition under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer accepted that . .
IPO Appeals to the Appointed Person Decisions – Trade Marks . .
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition – The opponents filed evidence to say that they had first commenced to use the mark WACKERS from 1993 and goods (a game known as ‘Pogs’) were sold in the USA . .
The applicants sought revocation of the defendant’s trade marks on the grounds that they had not been implemented after five years. It was sensible to go straight from the Directive, rather than the Act which implemented it. The onus was on the . .
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given . .
The claimant said that the defendant had infriged its rights by the use of its logo on their publications. . .
An action was begun opposing a trade mark. It was conducted under the old rules, which did not allow for an order for discovery. After the new rules came into effect, discovery was sought, but the registrar said the old rules would continue to apply . .
References: [2006] UKIntelP o22406 Links: Bailii Coram: Mrs J Pike ICO Section 5(2)(b): Invalidity action failed. Section 5(3): Invalidity action failed Section 5(4)(a): Invalidity action failed. Section 56(2): Invalidity action failed The applicant in these proceedings is the owner of a number of registered marks (UK & CTM) such as TOYS’R’US, MUMS’R’US, BABIES’R’US, ‘R’US etc … Continue reading Windows ‘R’ Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 8 Aug 2006
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
The Court of Appeal should not tinker with sentences passed by lower courts in the absence of exceptional circumstances, or where they were wrong in principle, or were manifestly excessive. Here a sentence of 30 months for a professional and systematic breach of Trade Mark law was not to be set aside. The sentence was … Continue reading Regina v Gleeson: CACD 3 Oct 2001
The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the defendant had the mark ‘SPAMBUSTER’ for computer programs. Held: The claim was estopped. … Continue reading Hormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV: ChD 24 Jan 2005
Citations: [2003] EWCA Crim 3110 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 92(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.279858
It was a misuse of Trade Mark legislation to seek permanently to prevent the use of a substantial engineering design idea which was underlying the mark for which protection was sought. The judge revocation of the registration of the claimant’s mark on the ground, inter alia, that it was incapable of distinguishing the goods concerned … Continue reading Philips Electronics Nv v Remington Consumer Products Ltd: ChD 2 Feb 1998
Judges: Norris J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1036 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.434888
There can be no copyright in a name as such; ‘Elvis’ insufficiently distinctive for a Trade Mark. Citations: Times 25-Mar-1997 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.81696
Appeal against registration of mark. Citations: [2008] EWHC 3371 (Ch), [2008] Bus LR 1621 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 5(2)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.267664
IPO Opposition. Judges: Professor Ruth Annand Citations: 2161562B, [2006] UKIntelP o31706 Links: IPO, Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.273621
The claimant opposed registration of trade marks by the defendant. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2013] EWHC 589 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994, Council Directive 2008/95/EC Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.471879
The defenders registered internet domain names. The claimants alleged an intended infringement of their trade marks, saying the defenders had a history of opening sites intended to deceive. The defenders who were resident in Greece said that the 1982 Act could not be used for a threatened delict, but only for a completed one. Held: … Continue reading Bonnier Media Limited v Smith and Kestrel Trading Corporation: SCS 1 Jul 2002
The Trade Marks Act 1994 must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with the Directive, and the relevant provisions of the Directive conform to those of the Regulation. Kitchin J summarised the principles to be applied when testing for confusion of marks: ‘i) The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account … Continue reading Julius Samann Ltd and others v Tetrosyl Ltd: ChD 17 Mar 2006
Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted registration of esure’s trade mark. Esure now appealed a ruling against it’s … Continue reading Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc: ChD 29 Jun 2007
Both parties used the name ‘Elle’ in their respective products, a women’s magazine, and handknitting yarns. They disputed the registration of a trade mark for the latter in the UK. Held: The court endorsed the continuing applicabiity of the guidelines in Reef when a court was asked to upset a decision of a lower but … Continue reading Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd: ChD 24 Jan 2007
The defendant appealed his sentence for conspiracy to supply counterfeit drugs. Held: The defendant need only serve the sentence if he failed to pay a penalty which the court had decided he could afford to pay. Appeal dismissed. Judges: Scott Baker LJ, Holland J, Loraine-Smith J Citations: [2006] EWCA Crim 2717 Links: Bailii Statutes: Medicines … Continue reading Valentine v Regina: CACD 10 Nov 2006
The complainant appealed dismissal of charges against the respondent of displaying for sale goods bearing marks identical to registered trade marks. The defendant asserted that he had reasonable grounds for belief that the goods were not counterfeit having cecked with market officials and a VAT inspector. The magistrates had acted on the basis that the … Continue reading West Sussex County Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Kahraman: Admn 13 Jun 2006
ECJ Opinion – Trade marks of such a nature as to deceive the public or liable to mislead the public as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of a product – Trade mark assigned by the proprietor together with the undertaking producing the goods to which the mark relates – Directive 89/104/EEC. Judges: Ruiz-Jabaro … Continue reading Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (Approximation of Laws): ECJ 30 Mar 2006
The Court considered right of an applicant for the registration of a trade mark to change the class number specified by him on Form TM3 in respect of goods for which he had made an application for registration. The appeal turned on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1994 … Continue reading Reliance Water Controls Ltd v Altecnic Ltd: CA 12 Dec 2001
The claimant sought summary judgment against the defendant for operating websites using domain names which included the claimant’s name and trade marks. Tesco had entered into agreements with a third party company who organised adverts for Tesco on other sites. Tesco approved the main sites which did not use the Tesco name, but the defendant … Continue reading Tesco Stores Ltd v Elogicom Ltd and Another: ChD 8 Mar 2006
The defendant had been convicted of offences under the Act, and challenged a direction form the judge that the phrases ‘with a view to’ and ‘with intent to’ meant different things. Held: The judge’s direction was correct. ‘With a view to’ in this context, meant that the offender contemplated some result, without necessarily wanting or … Continue reading Regina v Zaman: CACD 1 Jul 2002
The claimant alleged that the defendants had been importing copies of their perfumes. The products were not counterfeits, but ‘smell-alikes’. The defendants’ packaging and naming was used to suggest which perfume it resembled. Held: The claimant’s expert survey evidence was defective in several ways, but even so there was no evidence of confusion under the … Continue reading L’Oreal Sa and others v Bellure NV and others: ChD 4 Oct 2006
The several defendants appealed convictions for breaches of section 92 of the Act. Held: The section presumed that a civil infringement of the Trade Mark had taken place. Accordingly any of the defences available to a civil action must be available also against a criminal action. Furthermore there was no conflict between the Act and … Continue reading Regina v Johnstone, etc: CACD 1 Feb 2002
The owner of a registered trade mark ‘Premier’ sued for swing tags which carried the defendant’s full name ‘The Premier Company (UK) Ltd.’. Held: A trade mark use can fall within the scope of the Art 6.1 defence. There there was no passing off or Art.5.1(a) infringement in respect of these: ‘If the use by … Continue reading Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v The Premier Company (UK) Ltd and Another: CA 26 Mar 2002
Trade Marks Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Patten Citations: [2004] EWHC 2531 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 46(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219480
