Ads that compare are still up in the air under British trade marks act; two High Court decisions provide advertisers little guidance on use of rival marks in advertisements
Article Abstract:
The Barclaycard and Vodafone cases in the United Kingdom both had to do with trademark infringement and the meaning of Section 10(6) of the Trade Marks Act of 1994. The court agreed with the defendants in both cases that the primary goal of this section was to make comparative advertising easier. The section is badly worded, however, and makes no specific mention of the phrase 'comparative advertising.' In both cases, the court ruled for the defendants and found the advertisements fair. The lesson learned from these cases is that use of competitors' trademarks is legal but must be honest. The trademark owner has the burden of proving the use to be dishonest. When confusion is possible a claim of 'passing off' could be made.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
New rulings provide ammunition in fight against counterfeiters
Article Abstract:
Two 1992 federal court decisions give trademark owners additional protection. Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corp v Concession Services states that landlords are contributorily liable for counterfeiting activities occurring on premises leased to the counterfeiter. Concession Services was held liable for allowing counterfeited Hard Rock Cafe t-shirts to be sold on its premises. Reebok International Ltd v Marnatech Enterprises upheld a lower court's temporary restraining order freezing the defendant's assets. The case concerned an international shoe counterfeiting ring.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1992
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Standard is set for partial trademark cancellation; a likelihood of confusion is the only reason the TTAB will narrow the use of a registered mark
Article Abstract:
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) in Eurostar v Euro-Star found that third parties seeking to partially cancel trademark registrations must show that a restriction on the existing trademark would avoid the likelihood of confusion. This further clarifies the effects of amendments to Sec 18 of the Trademark Act. The amendments gave the TTAB authority to restrict applications even of existing trademarks based on their actual use.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: EPA moves to cooperative approach; the new model stresses cost-conscious decision-making of regulators, industries, citizens
- Abstracts: Twilight of the cartel. Defending securities fraud class actions in state courts raises many procedural and substantive issues different from those being litigated in federal court
- Abstracts: New laws don't cancel old deals. Appeal court decision validates shady deals. High court protects habitats; a recent decision may restrict owners' rights in real property inhabited by endangered species
- Abstracts: Art of acquisition: adaptation; in the past 20 years, M & A lawyers have modified negotiation strategies to do their deals in a constantly evolving environment
- Abstracts: Teacher empowerment in education: a response. Faculty senates as labor organizations: an investigation of governance structures in higher education