The plaintiff owned the registered trade mark ‘Parker Knoll’. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to register additionally the single word ‘Knoll’ because the evidence suggested that a number of people took it to refer to the goods of the defendant and it could not satisfy all the conditions of an independent trade mark. In particular it was not inherently capable of distinguishing the plaintiff’s goods.
It is not necessarily the case that notice to an alleged infringer of the likelihood of deception will mean that use of the name thereafter is not in good faith
Upjohn LJ
[1961] RPC 346
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik; Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch CA 7-Feb-2000
The registration of two trade marks (‘Budweiser’) with the identical names was against the Act since it would appear to encourage the very confusion the Act sought to avoid. Nevertheless, where there was genuine honest concurrent use, that use might . .
Appeal from – Parker-Knoll v Knoll International HL 1962
A company which used its own name to brand goods in circumstances likely to cause confusion to the public had no defence to a passing off claim. Although the plaintiff need not show an intention to deceive, the Court will more readily find that a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.258735 br>