Trade Mark infringement – sections 10(1) and 10(2)
The Ds admit that D1 has used the Signs in the course of trade in relation to services identical to those for which the HAYMAN-JOYCE Mark is registered. However, the Ds contest the validity of the HAYMAN-JOYCE Mark and argue in the alternative that they have a defence to the Claims brought. These issues are dealt with below.8.Whether the Ds have a defence to the infringement claims by reason of s.11(3) of the TradeMarks Act 1994.9.Whether the C is estopped from pursuing its claim for trade mark infringement against the Ds.
- Miss Recorder Amanda Michaels:
- Class 35
- owned
- and none of them shall use the name of the Partnership
- in the absence of agreement to the contrary
- It is irrelevant whether the goodwill in the licensed business would otherwise have accrued to the licensee, the licensor, or both. It is the parties’ contractual agreement, and not some extrinsic legal fiction or equitable doctrine, which operates to vest the goodwill in the licensor, unless otherwise agreed
- [First Defendant] owns goodwill in residential sales within the Broadway area.
- Passing Off
- Trade Mark infringement – sections 10(1) and 10(2)
- Counterclaim