Watts v Aldington
1999 LTR 578 that “the touchstone of implication is strict necessity” and the Supreme Court’s guidance in
- 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