Trademark – Infringement And Defences
Reading: Cornish & Llewelyn paras; 17-82 to 17 -119
Bently and Sherman pp 903 - 9445
TMA 94 = Trade Marks Act 1994
TM Directive = Trade Mark Directive 89/104
TM Reg = Council Regulation 40/94
CTMR 96 = Community Trade Mark Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1908)
HANDOUT
Part 1
INFRINGEMENT
1. 2 types of trademarks; national under the TMA 94 and Community under the
CTMR 96.
2. Proprietary rights defined: TMA 94 ss 9 - 13, Directive Arts 5 – 7, CTMR Arts 9
– 13. Can be infringed by oral use: Premier Luggage v The Premier Company
[2002] EWCA Civ 387
3. What is function or purpose of RTM? TM Directive ; “Whereas the protection
afforded by the registered trade mark, the function of which is in particular to
guarantee the trade mark as an indication of origin …” (Recital 10) Ditto TM Reg
Recital 7. See also TM Reg Recital 10.
Pfizer Inc v Eurim-Pharm [1981] ECR 2913, [1982] FSR 269,
Spalding v Gamage (1915) 32 RPC 273
4. Key words: “in the course of trade”. Trade defined in s. 103(1).
Arsenal v Reed [2003] ETMR 19[2003] RPC 9 (ECJ),
Beautimatic v Mitchell [2000] FSR 267,
Travelex Global v The Commission [2003] ETMR 90
5. Use must be of a “sign”. Does the defendant have to be using as a trade mark?:
Mothercare v Penguin Books [1988] RPC 113,
British Sugar v James Roberston [1996] RPC 281,
Philips Electronics v Remington [1999] RPC 809,
Arsenal v Reed [2001] ETMR 77, [2001] RPC 46 (High Court No 1),
Arsenal v Reed (ECJ supra)
Arsenal v Reed [2003] ETMR 36 (H Ct No 2)
Arsenal v Reed [2003] RPC 39 (Court of Appeal),
R v. Johnstone [2004] ETMR 2,
Robelco v. Robeco [2002] ECR1 – 10913
Adidas-Soloman v Fitness World Case C-408/01 (opinion of AG Jacobs)
Anheuser-Busch v Budjovicki [2005] ETMR.
Animated Music’s TM Application [2004] ETMR 79, Adam Opel v Autec c-48/05 (Jan
2007)
6. Must be “use” of sign. Examples given in s. 10(4). Compare s. 10(4)(a) with s.
10(5). C.f. John Walker v. Ost [1970] RPC 489 (passing off) , LA Gear v Hi-Tech
Sports [1992] FSR 121. cf Van Dusen v. Kritz [1936] 2 KB 176 (copyright). Note
s. 10(5) has no equivalent in either TM Directive or CTMR 96.
7. Use must also be “in relation to” goods or services.
Trebor Bassett v The Football Assn [1997] FSR 211,
Avnet v Isoact [1998] FSR 16,
Celine v Celine Case C-17/06 (Opinion of AG Sharpston)
8. Three categories of infringement: s. 10(1), s. 10(2) and s. 10(3). 10(3) equiv. to
TM Directive Art 5(2) – optional.
9. s. 10(1) – “anti-counterfeiting” provision?.
LTJ Diffusion v. Sadas [2003] FSR 34 (ECJ).
Compass v. Compass [2004] RPC 41 (H Ct),
Reed Executive v Reed Business Informatics [2004] RPC 40 (CA),
But AAH Pharmaceuticals v Vantagemax [2003] ETMR 18
10. Second Category of infringement: s. 10(2) – similar marks/similar goodsservices. [note the same wording as s. 5(2) of the TM Act and 4(1)(b) of the TM
Directive]. Similarity must be such as to give rise to a “likelihood of confusion,
including a likelihood of association”.
Wagamama v City Centre [1995] FSR 713,
Sabel v Puma [1997] CRI – 6191, [1998] RPC 199.
Marca Mode [2000] ETMR 723,
Lloyd Schuhfabrik v Meyer [1999] ETMR 690
Premier Brands [2000] FSR 767,
Thomson Holidays [2002] EWCA Civ 1828,,
BP Amoco v Kelly [2002] FSR 87.
11. Third Category of infringement: “Marks with a reputation. S 10(3), TM Directive
Art 5(2). Note this is optional. The following requirements exist: (1) identical and
similar marks (2) on goods/services whether similar or not (3) where the trade
mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom (4) and the use of the sign, being
without due cause, (5) takes unfair advantage of, or (6) is detrimental to, the
distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
Adidas-Soloman v Fitness World Case C-408/01 (opinion of AG Jacobs)
Note: Originally said “relation to goods or services which are not similar” (see Art
5(2)) – but removed as a result of Adidas-Solomon v. Fitness World [2004] FSR 401.
Altered by Reg 7 of the Trade marks (Proof of Use etc) Regulations 2004 – SI 2004
No 946)
12. (2) on goods/services whether similar or not. (cf s. 10(2)). Hence no requirement
of confusion of goods or proprietors.
Premier Brands,
Adidas-Soloman v Fitness World Case C-408/01 (opinion of AG Jacobs),
Spa Monopole v Spa Savers Case T67/04
13. (3) where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom.
General Motors v. Yplon [2000] RPC 572
14. (4) and the use of the sign, being without due cause,
Premier Brands,
Pebble Beach v Lombard Brands [2003] ETMR 252,
Julius Samann vTetrosyl [2006] EWHC 529 (Ch) (the Magic Tree Case)
15. (5) takes unfair advantage of,
General Motors (Opinion of AG),
Pebble Beach,
Premier Brands (supra),
Adidas-Soloman v Fitness World
RBS v Advanta [1996] RPC 307,
L’Oreal v Bellure [2006] EWHC 2355
16. (6) or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark
Adidas-Soloman v Fitness World
HL
2007