Where a trader was involved in an activity quite outside any activity which might be undertaken by the holder of the registered trade mark, and there was no real likelihood of confusion, the owner of the mark could not claim that the value of his own mark would be diminished or damaged caused to its reputation by the additional use. There was no evidence that the use of the name ‘Merc’ by the defendants who were selling clothing had been confused with goods of the claimant.
Pumfrey J
Gazette 29-Mar-2001, Times 16-Feb-2001, [2000] EWHC Ch 37, [2001] RPC 42, [2001] ETMR 46, [2001] RPC 17
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – General Motors Corporation v Yplon SA ECJ 14-Sep-1999
Europa Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104 concerning trade marks – which extends the protection of a registered trade mark to products or services which are neither identical nor similar to those for . .
Cited by:
Cited – Mastercard International Incorporated v Hitachi Credit (Uk) Plc ChD 8-Jul-2004
The claimants challenged award of a trade mark saying they were owners of many marks incorporating the word ‘Master’ associated with credit, and the applicants mark was too similar to its own.
Held: Applying Davidoff, the words can also be . .
Cited – Intel Corporation v Sihra ChD 2003
The court considered the observations of Pumfrey J in the Chrysler case as requiring proof of real future unfair advantage or detriment and not merely risk, and emphasised both the need for a causal connection between similarity on the one hand and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.163000