(Mauritius) The claimant sought registration in Mauritius of a trade mark for the applicants which had been registered in the respondents name in several jurisdictions over the world. Mauritian law provided that an application for registration may be made by any person who has a right to use a trade mark, but also prohibited registration of marks where the use ‘would by reason of its being calculated to deceive or otherwise’ be disentitled to protection in a court. The objectors had marked goods for export to Mauritius.
Held: The marking of goods with the intention of exporting them to Mauritius was enough to constitute use of the mark there. The words ‘disentitled to protection in a court of justice’, required not only a likelihood of deception or confusion but also a user at the relevant time by the owner of the mark which the court would protect. There was no effective distinction just because the word might be a domestic one.
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Clyde
[1999] UKPC 57, (Appeal No 45 of 1998)
Bailii, PC, PC
Trade Marks Act (Mauritius)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 August 2021; Ref: scu.163213