Parallel importers could not be prevented from so acting by Trade Mark law unless it could be shown that the activity caused substantial damage to the specific substance of the Mark. If damage was shown, the owner could complain unless it would operate to breach European law. A mark owner could object to the re-application of his mark by such importers only if he had not received notice of such activity. This was irrespective of proof of damage, but knowledge of the importer’s activities constituted notice. ‘A trade mark is a badge, in the widest sense, used on or in relation to goods so as to indicate source.’
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
Times 14-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC Ch 134, [2000] FSR 529
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AV and Others and One Other Action HL 4-Apr-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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, European
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.135964