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 relevant confusion on the other and the need to keep ‘similarity’ and ‘confusion’ as issues separate from one another.
Judges:
Patten J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 17 (Ch), [2003] RPC 44
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Daimler Chysler AG v Javid Alavi (t/a Merc) ChD 18-Dec-2000
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 . .
Cited – British Sugar plc v James Robertson and Sons Ltd 1996
Use ‘in the course of trade’ means use by way of business and does not just mean use as a trade mark. . .
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 – Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc ChD 29-Jun-2007
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.198677