Condition (v)
53. As regards condition (v), Battle accepts that its jacket, gilet, hat band, leg band, tail band and bridle are identical to goods for which the mercury mark is registered. However, it denies that its phone holder is similar, let alone identical, to any such goods. Against this Equisafety argues that the phone holder is at least moderately similar to the registered “Protective caps for cameras”. I agree with Equisafety. The registration for goods in class 9, taken as a whole, is clearly intended to cover goods that provide protection against injury or accident, including, as the reference to protective caps for cameras shows, injury or accident to a camera. In my judgment, a reflective case for a mobile phone is a similar product.
- 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