Conclusion in relation to sections 47(2) and 5(4)(a) TMA
155.Subject to D1’s defence of acquiescence, which I will now go onto consider, C has satisfied me of its case of invalidity of D1’s 2015 Trade Marks under sections 47(2) and 5(4)(a) TMA, as I am satisfied that D1’s 2015 Trade Marks in respect of floor cleaning machines in class 7 are liable to be prevented by virtue of the law of passing off.
- INTRODUCTION
- ICE Group
- Killis
- C’s Trade Marks
- D1’s 2015 Trade Marks
- C’s claims in infringement and passing off
- The Defendants’ defence to infringement and passing off
- C’s invalidity case
- The Defendants’ counterclaim
- C’s Defence to Counterclaim
- Trade Mark Infringement
- Trade Mark Invalidity
- Absolute grounds for refusal of registration
- Relative grounds for refusal of registration
- Passing-off in the context of invalidity (section 5(4)(a) TMA)
- Acquiescence
- in use
- WITNESSES
- Darren Marston
- Mark Bresnihan
- Sean Edwards
- Michael Pang
- Alexander Schless
- Tibor Killi
- THE FACTS
- www.ice-clean.com
- ICE Machines
- DRYVER machines
- agreed
- THE ISSUES
- C’s invalidity claims in relation to D1’s 2015 Trade Marks pursuant to sections 47(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) TMA
- Relevant date
- Goodwill
- Misrepresentation
- Damage
- Conclusion in relation to sections 47(2) and 5(4)(a) TMA
- Statutory acquiescence – sections 48 and 5(4)(a) TMA
- Ds’ invalidity claims in relation to C’s Trade Marks
- C’s invalidity claims in respect of D1’s 2020 Trade Marks
- Sections 47(2)(a) and 5(2) TMA – Likelihood of confusion
- Sections 47(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) TMA – use liable to be prevented by Passing Off
- Ss 47(1) and 3(6)TMA – Bad Faith
- Issue 5 – Infringement of C’s Trade Marks
- Infringement by Killis
- Infringement by D3
- Passing-off
- SUMMARY
- Counterclaim