Posts

Showing posts with the label registration

Trade Mark Registration, Absolute Grounds for Refusal - Re STITCH, Stitch v TikTok

Image
  Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Sir Anthony Mann) Stitch Editing Ltd v TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 1167 (Ch) (17 May 2023) This was an appeal against the decision of Ms June Ralph in which she upheld an opposition by Tik Tok Information Technologies UK Ltd. ("TikTok") to an application by Stitch Editing Ltd. ("Stitch") to register STITCH as a trade mark for various services in class 41 (see Re STITCH, Tik Tok Information Technologies UK Ltd. v Stitch Editing Ltd . BL O/716/22 24 Aug 2022). The appeal came on before Sir Anthony Mann on 29 March 2023 who handed down judgment on 17 May 2023.  By para [47] of his judgment, Sir Anthony allowed the appeal.  He remitted the case to Ms Ralph for a fresh decision in the light of his findings (see Stitch Editing Ltd v TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 1167 (Ch) (17 May 2023)). The Application Stitch applied to register STITCH as a trade mark for the following services in class 41: ...

The Rubettes - Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd v Clarke

Image
The Rubettes. (2022, July 18). In Wikipedia . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The _Rubette s Licence CC BY 3.0 Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Ms Pat Treacy) Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd. and another v Clarke and others [1922] EWHC 1798 (IPEC) (13 Jully 2022) This was a dispute between former members of a rock group known as The Rubettes .  The   claimants were Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd. and one Alan Williams.  The company was owned by Mr Williams and his wife.  Mick Clarke and John Richardson, the first and second defendants, had performed with Mr Willians in the original band.   The third defendant, Steve Etherington. had joined the band later. The claimants claimed that the company (or alternatively the company and Mr Williams) owned the goodwill in the names "The Rubettes" or "The Rubettes featuring Alan Williams" ("the Rubettes' Names") in relation to live music events, merchandising, music sales and associated ...

Trade Marks and Passing off - Fit Kitchen Ltd v Scratch Meals Ltd

Image
By Scott Bauer - This image was released by the Agricultural Research  Service, the research agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, with the ID k7245-1 (next)., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1636079 Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Fit Kitchen Ltd and another v Scratch Meals Ltd [2020] EWHC 2069 (IPEC) (29 July 2020) This was an action for trade mark infringement and passing off. There was also a counterclaim for the invalidation of the claimant's mark under s.47 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ,   The action and counterclaim were tried by His Honour Judge Hacon on 17 June 2020.  His judgment in  Fit Kitchen Ltd and another v Scratch Meals Ltd [2020] EWHC 2069 was handed down on 29 July 2020. The first claimant is a private company incorporated with limited liability in England and Wales in the name of Fit Kitchen Limited ("Fit Kitchen") ...

New International Registration System for Geographical Indications and Appellations of Origin

Image
S tandard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert The Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement on Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications  came into force on 26 Feb 2020.  Art 29 (2) of the Act provides for it to enter into force three months after five eligible parties referred to in art 28 have deposited their instruments of ratification or accession.  That condition was satisfied on 26 Nov 2019 when the European Union deposited its instrument of accession with Francis Gurry, the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO")  (see WIPO press release  European Union Joins Geneva Act of WIPO’s Lisbon Agreement, Enabling Entry into Force  26 Nov 2019). The Geneva Act supplements the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration  of 15 Oct 1958 by providing for the registration of geographical indications  as well as appellations of origin and by making it possible f...

Trade Marks - The KitKat Appeal: How does a Shape Mark acquire Distinctiveness?

Image
Jane Lambert Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 358 (17 May 2017) Unregistered design right  subsists for no more than 15 years. A design registration for only 25. But a trade mark registration can last forever. That no doubt explains why La Société des Produits Nestlé S.A  ("Nestlé") has persevered with this case despite losing to Cadbury UK Ltd  ("Cadbury") in the Trade Marks Registry and on appeal. The Issue S.1 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994  provides that any sign can be a trade mark so long as it is "capable of being represented graphically" and "capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings." The section gives some examples one of which is "the shape of goods or their packaging." On 8 July 2010, Nestlé's trade mark agents applied to the  Intellectual Property Office  ("the IPO") to register the shape of the K...

Ukulele Wars: The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain v Clausen

Image
Although Judge Hacon's decision in  The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain v Clausen and Another  [2015] EWHC 1772 (IPEC)  was reported as a "victory" in the Independent ( The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain wins duel with German 'copycat' 3 July 2015) it was somewhat of the pyrrhic kind.   The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain  sued  The United Kingdom Ukulele Orchestra  for trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off and applied to strike out the defence on the grounds of abuse of process less than two weeks before the trial. The claim succeeded on passing off but failed on all other counts. The claimants lost their Community trade mark and the judge saw no merit in the strike out application whatever. The case is an interesting one because it considers what can be protected by intellectual property. The parties were very similar acts.  The claimants' was described as follows by Judge Hacon at paragraph [1] pf his judgm...