Oran’s Position - Passing off
19.Oran’s case is that the ORANMORE Signs with or without the First Defendant’s Device are very closely similar to Oran’s trading style (namely the word mark ORAN PRE-CAST and the OP Device set out in Annex 1 to this judgment) and in each case their use is likely to lead to deception on the part of the public which has damaged, and is likely to further damage, its trade. The relevant issues are Issues 6 – 10. In order to show deception it relies on the same evidence of confusion as it relies on in the infringement claim.
- Defendants
- INTRODUCTION
- WITNESSES
- The claims
- www.oranmore.co.uk
- Undisputed issues
- Oran’s position - Infringement
- Oran’s Position - Passing off
- Oranmore’s Defences
- Relevant matrix of facts
- Findings of fact on disputed issues
- The Law
- Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank
- Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc
- Arnold v Britton & Ors
- Rainy Sky
- Submissions and discussion by issue
- Factual context
- Documentary context
- Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali
- Commercial context
- Decision on scope of the Compromise Agreement
- Watts v Aldington
- Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v National Westminster Bank
- Hutton v Eyre
- Conclusion – Compromise Agreement
- TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT
- Interflora v Marks & Spencer
- Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd
- Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp
- Specsavers
- Maier
- Interflora
- Honda Motor Co Ltd v Neesam
- Issues 3 and 4 - Is there similarity between Oranmore Signs and the Registered Mark such that, when used with identical goods and services, there is a likelihood of confusion?
- Issue 3 - Comparison between Registered Mark and signs
- Issue 5 - Evidence of actual confusion
- Issue 4 - Likelihood of confusion
- Copyright Licence
- Zino Davidoff SA v AG Import Ltd (and others)
- Zino Davidoff SA v A & G Imports Limited and Levi Strauss & Co v Tesco Stores Limited
- Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters & Frankau Ltd
- Davidoff
- Issues 15 - 20 – Acquiescence
- Conclusion on infringement
- PASSING OFF
- Reckitt & Colman Product v Borden
- Annex 1