Case No. EWHC-11-(IPEC)

134.In summary, in my judgment: i)ii)In 2003, the Claimant and the First Defendant agreed that: a)The First Defendant could continue to trade under CORMETON ELECTRONICS and CORMETON ELECTRONICS LIMITED; b)The First Defendant could continue to use the Domain Name; and c)The First Defendant would not trade under CORMETON, CORMETON ELECTRONICS or CORMETON ELECTRONICS LIMITED in relation to mechanical fire safety goods and services – rather it would only trade in the supply and sale of electrical safety equipment; iii)Those uses in (ii)(a) and (ii)(b) above are therefore under licence, and do not therefore infringe sections 10(1), 10(2) or 10(3) of the TMA nor constitute passing off; iv)The Mark is not invalid under section 3(3)(b) of the TMA nor liable for revocation under section 46(1)(d) of the TMA; v)The First Defendant’s uses of CORMETON on its own in relation to the First Defendant’s Goods/Services are outside the terms of the 2003 licence and infringe the Mark under sections 10(1), 10(2) and 10(3) of the TMA and constitute passing off; vi)The First Defendant’s uses of the Signs and the CE Sign in relation to mechanical fire protection goods and services are outside the terms of the 2003 licence and infringe the Mark under sections 10(1), 10(2) and 10(3) of the TMA and constitute passing off; and vii)Trade mark infringement and passing off are not avoided on the basis of honest concurrent use, estoppel or acquiescence.