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 in all the circumstances. No confusion was intended; they wanted only to associate their own name with the totaljobs web-site. When confusion was discovered steps were taken to minimise that confusion. The pop-up banner did not display the mark infringed, and no likelihood of confusion was established. The notion of ‘honest practices’ in commercial matters is an objective one. The judge had failed properly to distinguish between articles 51(a) and 51(b). The appeal was allowed.
Jacob LJ discussed the situation for newly formed companies: ‘Any fear that dishonest people might form companies with misleading names so as to take advantage of the defence is easily removed by the use of the proviso – such a deliberate attempt to avail oneself of another’s mark would not be an honest practice’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Jacob
Citations:
[2004] EWCA (Civ) 159, [2004] RPC 767, Times 09-Mar-2004, [2004] RPC 40
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Marks Act 1994 10, Trade Marks Directive (89/104) 5(1)(a) 5(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Reed Executive plc and Reed Solutions plc v- Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd and totaljobs com Ltd ChD 20-May-2002
The defendant company used the trade marks of the claimant on their web-site to attract visitors. However the trade marks themselves were not visible when the site was browsed, or when it was listed on the search engine.
Held: The use of a . .
Appeal from – Reed Executive plc and Reed Solutions plc v- Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd and totaljobs com Ltd ChD 19-Dec-2002
Pumfrey J said: ‘Under Art 5(1) (b) [section 10 (2)] the comparison is not a straightforward mark for sign comparison. On the contrary, it involves a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion as to origin of the goods or services concerned. . .
Cited – Avnet v Isoact ChD 1998
The claimant sold its goods via the internet. Part of the trade was to sell advertising space on its web pages. The claimant had registered the mark ‘avnet’ for advertising and promotional services. The defendant was an ISP providing internet . .
Cited – Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel ECJ 22-Jun-1999
ECJ In accordance with the division of functions provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the role of the Court of Justice is limited to providing the national court with the guidance on . .
Cited – Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v Deenik ECJ 23-Feb-1999
The expressions complained of as trade mark infringements were ‘BMW specialist,’ ‘Specialised in BMWs’ and ‘Repairs and maintenance of BMWs’.
Held: The Court proceeded on the basis that this was an Art.5(1)(a) case of identical marks and . .
Cited – Columbia Graphophone’s TMs 1932
The goods specified by the trade mark under attack was ‘all goods in Class 8’. Class 8 read ‘philosophical instruments, scientific instruments and apparatus for useful purposes; instruments and apparatus for teaching’. An application for partial . .
Cited – General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd ChD 1969
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, . .
Cited – Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel ECJ 22-Jun-1999
ECJ In accordance with the division of functions provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the role of the Court of Justice is limited to providing the national court with the guidance on . .
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 – Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer ECJ 29-Sep-1998
In a complaint of trade mark infringement, and when comparing the mark and sign, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods/services and vice versa.
Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport ECJ 11-Nov-1997
The test of whether a sign is confusing is how the use of the sign would be perceived by the average consumer of the type of goods in question. ‘The likelihood of confusion must therefore be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG ECJ 22-Jun-2000
The reputation of a trade mark does not give grounds for presuming a likelihood of confusion simply because of a likelihood of association in the strict sense.
Europa Article 5(1)(b) of First Directive . .
Cited – Joseph Rodgers and Sons Ltd v W N Rodgers and Co 1924
The court discussed the ‘own-name’ defence in an action for passing off or trade mark infringement: ‘To the proposition of law that no man is entitled to carry on his business in such a way as to represent that it is the business of another, or is . .
Cited – Office Cleaning Services v Westminster Window and General Cleaning HL 1946
Where a trader adopts words in common use for his trade name some risk of confusion is inevitable, and that risk must be run by him unless the first user is allowed unfairly to monopolise the words. The consequence of this is that where a mark is . .
Cited – Neutrogena Coroporation v Golden Ltd CA 1996
The court discussd the ‘substantial proportion of the public’ test applied in passing off. The purpose of this evidence was to provide real evidence from ordinary members of the public wholly untainted by any artificiality. . .
Cited – Dunhill v Sunoptic 1979
Trade mark infringement – own name defence . .
Cited – Guccio Gucci v Paulo Gucci 1991
Trade mark infringement – own name defence . .
Cited – Asprey and Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd and Another CA 11-Oct-2001
The Asprey family had been in business for many years. Their business was incorporated, and later sold to the claimants. A member of the Asprey family sought to carry on new businesses through limited companies using the family name. Upon request, . .
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 . .
Cited – Re GE TM; General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd 1972
The court considered the historical development of the defence of honest concurrent use of trade marks. . .
Cited – Gerolsteiner Brunnen v Putsch ECJ 7-Jan-2004
There was a conflict between the registered mark Gerri (for inter alia mineral water) and an alleged infringement ‘Kerry Spring’ for Irish mineral water from the Kerry Spring sold by a company called Kerry Spring Water. The referring court held . .
Cited – Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v The Premier Company (UK) Ltd and Another CA 26-Mar-2002
The owner of a registered trade mark ‘Premier’ sued for swing tags which carried the defendant’s full name ‘The Premier Company (UK) Ltd.’.
Held: A trade mark use can fall within the scope of the Art 6.1 defence. There there was no passing off . .
Cited – Lever Bros v Mabro 1912
Passing off by substitution is where a trader having accepted an order for one brand supplies another brand in such a way that the customer is unlikely to notice the substitution and is misled. . .
Cited – Home Office v Lownds (Practice Note) CA 21-Mar-2002
The respondent had been ordered to pay costs of over pounds 16,000 in an action for clinical negligence where the final award was only pounds 4,000. The Secretary of State appealed claiming that the costs were disproportionate.
Held: In such . .
Cited – Spalding (A G ) and Brothers v A W Gamage Ltd HL 1915
The House considered the requirements for the tort of passing off. The judge has the sole responsibility for deciding whether anybody has been misled. He will hear evidence, but must not surrender his assessment to others.
Lord Parker said: . .
Cited – McDonalds v Burger King 1987
Where a trade mark or passing off claim succeeds at trial, the successful claimant is entitled to an inquiry as to damages unless the court is satisfied it would be fruitless. . .
Cited – Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc ChD 1998
The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative . .
Cited – Hurst v Leeming (9026) ChD 9-May-2002
The claimant solicitor, had instructed the defendant, a barrister, to represent him in a civil claim. He sought had damages for alleged negligence. He had agreed that the action could not proceed, and the court had to decide the costs. He resisted . .
Cited by:
Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd v Elogicom Ltd and Another ChD 8-Mar-2006
The claimant sought summary judgment against the defendant for operating websites using domain names which included the claimant’s name and trade marks. Tesco had entered into agreements with a third party company who organised adverts for Tesco on . .
Cited – L’Oreal Sa and others v Bellure NV and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had been importing copies of their perfumes. The products were not counterfeits, but ‘smell-alikes’. The defendants’ packaging and naming was used to suggest which perfume it resembled.
Held: The . .
See Also – Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs.Com Ltd CA 14-Jul-2004
Walker v Wilshire still Good Law
After successfully appealing, the defendant claimant argued for a substantial part of its costs, saying that the defendant had unreasonably refused ADR. To pursue this, it now sought disclosure of the details of the without prejudice negotiations . .
Cited – Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd and others v Vetplus Ltd CA 20-Jun-2007
The claimants appealed refusal of an order restricting comparative advertising materials for the defendant’s competing veterinary medicine. The claimant said that the rule against prior restraint applicable to defamation and other tort proceedings . .
Cited – D Jacobson and Sons Ltd v Globe Gb Ltd Globe Europe Sas Chd 25-Jan-2008
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendants of its ‘Gola’ trade mark designs. The defendant said the registration was invalid because the stripes on the shoes were not distincive being seen as part of the design of the shoe rather than as an . .
Cited – Hotel Cipriani Srl and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others CA 24-Feb-2010
The claimants owned Community and UK trade marks in the name ‘Cipriani’. The defendants operated a restaurant in London using, under the licence of another defendant, the same name. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further use of the . .
Cited – Lewis v Client Connection Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged infringement of his registered trade marks ‘Money Saving Expert’ and associated terms. The defendant operated a service trading as ‘Money Claiming Expert’. Both services included advising those who might wish to claim refunds . .
Cited – Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd IPEC 29-May-2014
The claimant asserted passing off and trade mark infringement by the defendant in respect of its own hair oil product and the defendant’s sale of ‘Miracle Oil’. The defendant counterclaimed in a threat action. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.194110