Ewing v Buttercup Margarine Co
[1917] 2 Ch 1, CA. He concluded that: “The real distinction between the two lies in their causative effect, but is not a complete statement of the position… The more complete statement focuses on whether the conduct complained of is “really likely” to be damaging to the Claimant’s goodwill or divert trade from him. This emphasis on “really likely” echoes Lord Fraser in
- Sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court
- Defendant
- INTRODUCTION
- Trade Mark
- CHRONOLOGY
- ISSUES
- title
- Section 10(2) TMA
- C-206/01 Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed
- Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd
- Specsavers
- Maier
- Canon
- Interflora v Marks & Spencer
- Specsaver
- Section 10(3) TMA
- C-375/97 General Motors v Yplon
- link
- Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Ltd
- Red Bull GmbH v Sun Mark Limited and Sea Air & Land Forwarding Limited
- Intel Corporation
- Passing Off
- Reckitt & Colman Product v Borden
- [2013] FSR 21
- The National Guild of Removers and Storers Limited v Bee Moved Limited, Nicholas Anthony Burns and Oliver Christopher Robert Sampson
- Ewing v Buttercup Margarine Co
- Advocaat
- ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
- Average Consumer
- Use of the sign complained of
- Sign identical or similar to the Trade Mark
- LTJ Diffusion
- Jack Wills
- Stannard v Reay
- Sutherland v V2 Music Ltd
- QUANTUM OF DAMAGES
- SUMMARY