Case No. EWHC-3296-(IPEC)

49. Equisafety also claims that Battle’s actions amounted to an infringement of its trade mark under s.10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Section 10(2) states as follows: “A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because— (a) the sign is identical to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or (b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.” 50. To establish infringement under s.10(2), six conditions must be satisfied: (i) there must be use of a sign by a third party within the relevant territory, (ii) the use must be in the course of trade, (iii) the use must be without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark, (iv) the use must be of a sign which is at least similar to the trade mark, (v) the use must be in relation to goods or services which are at least similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, and (vi) the use must be such as to give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark. 51. In the present case, only conditions (iv) to (vi) are in issue.