Conclusion
99. For these reasons, I find that Battle’s activities outlined above constituted passing off and also, insofar as they occurred after 6 June 2019, infringements of Equisafety’s Mercury trade mark. However, I dismiss Equisafety’s claim against Mr Dewey. 1 In the case of the bridles, the references to a “flash” are references to a strap which forms part of the b ridle rather than to any high visibility feature of the bridles. 2 In fact, contrary to Equisafety’s pleaded case, in the case of the phone holder the word “reflective” is omitted from the label but it seems to me that little turns on this. 3 Save in the case of the phone holder where the word “reflective” was again omitted.
- Claim No. IL-2020-LIV-000001
- Introduction
- The witnesses
- The issues
- The trade mark issues – general points
- Relevance of EU law
- The average consumer
- section 3(1)
- Is the word mercury descriptive?
- Is use of the word mercury customary?
- Invalidity - bad faith, s.3(6()
- Infringement – the acts said to infringe the trade mark
- Infringement –
- s.10(1) Trade Marks Act 1994
- s.10(2) Trade Marks Act 1994
- Condition (iv)
- Condition (v)
- Condition (vi)
- s.10(3) Trade Marks Act 1994
- Condition (i) - reputation
- Condition (v) - sign at least similar to mark
- Condition (vii) - a link
- Condition (viii) - injury
- Condition (ix) – without due cause
- The s.11(2) defence
- Trade mark infringement - conclusion
- Passing off
- Joint tortfeasorship
- Conclusion