
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
A trade mark owner registered and – for a time – used a slogan.
After it stopped using the slogan, another party sought the owner’s consent to register it as a trade mark, threatening deregistration for non-use if consent was not provided. The owner consented.
The other party became the new owner of the mark and the owner cancelled its own registration: [6].
Following this – surprisingly – the new owner sued the former owner for trade mark infringement in relation to the slogan.
A person does not infringe another’s trade mark if the person exercises a right granted by the Trade Marks Act i.e. the rights the former owner had while it was the owner: s122(1)(e) of the TMA.
The Court found, with little difficulty, that the former owner was entitled to use the mark in the period in which it owned it: [20]. The document the new owner used to sue was struck out for being "embarrassing" in the legal sense.
The Court made orders setting out a regime allowing the new owner to propose a new document. In coming to its decision the Court noted the suggestion that expungement of a trade mark is not retrospective: [16].
So, if you’re the owner of a trade mark, you’re allowed to do the things that owners do!
5
22 ratings
A trade mark owner registered and – for a time – used a slogan.
After it stopped using the slogan, another party sought the owner’s consent to register it as a trade mark, threatening deregistration for non-use if consent was not provided. The owner consented.
The other party became the new owner of the mark and the owner cancelled its own registration: [6].
Following this – surprisingly – the new owner sued the former owner for trade mark infringement in relation to the slogan.
A person does not infringe another’s trade mark if the person exercises a right granted by the Trade Marks Act i.e. the rights the former owner had while it was the owner: s122(1)(e) of the TMA.
The Court found, with little difficulty, that the former owner was entitled to use the mark in the period in which it owned it: [20]. The document the new owner used to sue was struck out for being "embarrassing" in the legal sense.
The Court made orders setting out a regime allowing the new owner to propose a new document. In coming to its decision the Court noted the suggestion that expungement of a trade mark is not retrospective: [16].
So, if you’re the owner of a trade mark, you’re allowed to do the things that owners do!
68 Listeners
756 Listeners
23 Listeners
862 Listeners
69 Listeners
18 Listeners
51 Listeners
32 Listeners
314 Listeners
143 Listeners
243 Listeners
51 Listeners
40 Listeners
18 Listeners
19 Listeners