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: The procedure was available for a threatened delict. The difference between one threatened and one complete need not be substantial. Jurisdiction over the defendant was available where it could be seen that the web-site would be directed at the pursuers business. That was the case here.
Judges:
Lord Drummond Young
Citations:
Times 10-Jul-2002
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Marks Act 1994, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 1
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd CA 17-May-2001
When making a summary assessment of costs, the court should look primarily to the facts of the particular case before it. It would be proper to bear in mind its own experience of comparable cases. Having made that assessment, it was also proper to . .
Cited – Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Trade and Barrel Ltd ChD 25-Jul-2000
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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.174193
