Passing-off in the context of invalidity (section 5(4)(a) TMA)
26.The principles of passing off are well known. The elements necessary to reach a finding of passing off are the ‘classical trinity’ of that tort as described by Lord Oliver in the Jif Lemon case (Reckitt & Colman Product v Borden [1990] 1 WLR 491 HL, [1990] RPC 341, HL) namely goodwill or reputation; misrepresentation leading to deception or a likelihood of deception; and damage resulting from the misrepresentation.27.In the context of a section 5(4)(a) TMA invalidity action, the burden is on the party seeking to invalidate and the court is required to consider a normal and fair use of the mark concerned in respect of the goods or services for which it is registered, and determine whether this would result in passing off given the actual reputation of and goodwill in the opponent’s unregistered mark. 28.When considering goodwill, there must be “at least a prima facie case that the opponent’s reputation extends to the goods comprised in the applicant’s specification of goods.” (per South Cone Inc. v Bessant (REEF) [2002] EWCA Civ 763, [2003] RPC 5 at [27]) as at the relevant date.29.The relevant date is the date of application of the mark concerned, or its earlier priority date if there is one, save that if the mark was already in use prior to that date then the relevant date is the time of the first actual or threatened act of passing off: i.e. the date of commencement of the conduct complained of (which in this case is the date on which the ICE Group began to offer the relevant goods to the public in the United Kingdom) and where the conduct has changed materially between that date and the later date when the application was made, the court must reassess whether the position would have been any different at that later date.
- 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
