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 parties have destroyed the mark’ .
Judges:
Grahame J
Citations:
[1969] RPC 418
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs Com Ltd CA 3-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged trade mark infringement by the respondents by the use of a mark in a pop-up advert.
Held: The own-name defence to trade mark infringement is limited. Some confusion may be allowed if overall the competition was not unfair . .
Appeal from – General Electric Co v General Electric Co Limited; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark CA 1970
. .
Cited – Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
At first instance – General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark HL 1972
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.194801