The plaintiff claimed in both trade mark infringement and passing off. The defendant had opened a restaurant called ‘Rajamama’ or ‘Raja Mama’s’, which was said to amount to infringement of the claimant’s mark WAGAMAMA and also to amount to passing off.
Held: The claims succeeded. Laddie J held that one kind of confusion likely to occur between WAGAMAMA and RAJAMAMA was that some would think that the businesses were associated
‘A judge brings to the assessment of marks his own, perhaps idiosyncratic, pronunciation and view or understanding of them. Although the issue of infringement is one eventually for the judge alone, in assessing the marks he must bear in mind the impact the marks make or are likely to make on the minds of those persons who are likely to be customers for goods or services under the marks. Not all customers are the same. It is therefore sometimes of assistance for the court to hear evidence from witnesses who will help him to assess the variety of ways in which members of the target market will pronounce the marks and what, to them, will be the visual or phonetic impact of the marks. When considering infringement it is also necessary to bear in mind the possible impact of imperfect recollection on the part of members of the target market.’
and ‘I have come to the conclusion that the defendant’s mark, in either form, is so similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark that in use there exists a substantial likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public. That confusion is likely to take the form that some members of the public as a result of imperfect recollection will think the marks are the same while others will think that they are associated in the sense that one is an extension of the other . . or otherwise derived from the same source.’
As to the passing off claim and its associated evidence: ‘As is usual in passing off cases, the plaintiff produced a number of members of the public to prove that confusion was likely. No attempt was made to choose a group of people who would represent a reasonable cross-section of the population of England or London. The plaintiff did not have the financial resources to engage in that sort of exercise. Instead its solicitors attempted to contact all those customers who at one time or another had left their name and telephone number at the WAGAMAMA restaurant. On the evidence, no attempt was made to skew the results.’
Laddie J
[1995] FSR 713
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Bocacina Ltd v Boca Cafes Ltd IPEC 14-Oct-2013
The claimant alleged passing off by the defendant’s use of the name ‘Boca Bistro Cafe’, and subsequently ‘Bica Bistro Cafe’
Held: Where the defendant had changed its trading style during the proceedings it was possible, if the claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.516495