- Published on
Third element: damage
Damage or the possibility of damage must be demonstrated by the claimant. Due to the possibility of damages, the claimant will typically be asking for an interim injunction. When goodwill and deception are proven in a typical case involving a claimant and defendant in the same industry, the court will typically infer damages.
The two primary categories of damage are: (a) loss of earnings, which occurs when customers choose to purchase the infringing goods over the claimant's; and (b) loss of reputation, which occurs when buyers mistakenly believe the infringing product is created by the claimant due to its inferior quality. The claimant may not be successful if the infringement is engaged in another type of business and is unable to demonstrate damages. For instance, the nightclub in Stringfellow and Others v. McCain Foods GB Ltd and Another [1984] RPC 501 was unable to ban the sale of oven chips using the brand name "Stringfellows." The copyright holders of the Wombles novels and television series were unable to ban trash skips from being rented out under the name "Wombles" in the case of Wombles Ltd v. Wombles Skips Ltd [1977] RPC 99. In other instances, though, plaintiffs have been able to demonstrate harm from their inability to enter a new market. The "Marigold" rubber glove maker successfully prevented the use of the name "Marigold" on a toilet tissue (LRC International Ltd and Another v Lilla Edets Sales Co Ltd [1973] RPC 560). Additionally, there may be loss if the claimant's reputation is damaged by the infringer's product. The use in issue may have given rise to the misunderstanding that a well-known nightclub had established an escort service in the case of Annabel's (Berkeley Square) Ltd v. Schock (t/a Annabel's Escort service) [1972] RPC 838.
In Global Projects Management Ltd v. Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663 (Ch], the judge granted Citigroup summary judgment and was willing to acknowledge that the use of "citigroup.co.uk" by the domain owner had created a risk of emails being sent to uninvited recipients to the point where damage was obvious, even if it could not be measured. The case of Irvine and Others v Talksport Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 423, [2003] 2 All ER 881 involved renowned race car driver Eddie Irvine. The defendants utilized a photo of him holding a cell phone that they had edited to swap out the cell phone for a radio that said "Talk Radio" and then used the changed image as a flyer for their events. To put it another way, they leveraged him to promote their goods without paying him to do so. The Court of Appeal determined that this constituted passing off and that the normal fee that the claimant would have typically sought was the appropriate measure of damages for a misleading product endorsement.
Damage or the possibility of damage must be demonstrated by the claimant. Due to the possibility of damages, the claimant will typically be asking for an interim injunction. When goodwill and deception are proven in a typical case involving a claimant and defendant in the same industry, the court will typically infer damages.
The two primary categories of damage are: (a) loss of earnings, which occurs when customers choose to purchase the infringing goods over the claimant's; and (b) loss of reputation, which occurs when buyers mistakenly believe the infringing product is created by the claimant due to its inferior quality. The claimant may not be successful if the infringement is engaged in another type of business and is unable to demonstrate damages. For instance, the nightclub in Stringfellow and Others v. McCain Foods GB Ltd and Another [1984] RPC 501 was unable to ban the sale of oven chips using the brand name "Stringfellows." The copyright holders of the Wombles novels and television series were unable to ban trash skips from being rented out under the name "Wombles" in the case of Wombles Ltd v. Wombles Skips Ltd [1977] RPC 99. In other instances, though, plaintiffs have been able to demonstrate harm from their inability to enter a new market. The "Marigold" rubber glove maker successfully prevented the use of the name "Marigold" on a toilet tissue (LRC International Ltd and Another v Lilla Edets Sales Co Ltd [1973] RPC 560). Additionally, there may be loss if the claimant's reputation is damaged by the infringer's product. The use in issue may have given rise to the misunderstanding that a well-known nightclub had established an escort service in the case of Annabel's (Berkeley Square) Ltd v. Schock (t/a Annabel's Escort service) [1972] RPC 838.
In Global Projects Management Ltd v. Citigroup Inc [2005] EWHC 2663 (Ch], the judge granted Citigroup summary judgment and was willing to acknowledge that the use of "citigroup.co.uk" by the domain owner had created a risk of emails being sent to uninvited recipients to the point where damage was obvious, even if it could not be measured. The case of Irvine and Others v Talksport Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 423, [2003] 2 All ER 881 involved renowned race car driver Eddie Irvine. The defendants utilized a photo of him holding a cell phone that they had edited to swap out the cell phone for a radio that said "Talk Radio" and then used the changed image as a flyer for their events. To put it another way, they leveraged him to promote their goods without paying him to do so. The Court of Appeal determined that this constituted passing off and that the normal fee that the claimant would have typically sought was the appropriate measure of damages for a misleading product endorsement.
- Published on
Defences Against Passing Off
A variety of passing-off defenses have emerged from case law, although in an erratic and somewhat overlapping fashion. The following are the main ones: (a) the defendant's name, mark, or get-up used carefully and honestly; (b) the defendant's or claimant's use of the material other than in commerce; (c) the claimant has no goodwill or the goodwill is owned by another party; (d) the claimant's cooperation, encouragement, or consent to use; and (e) there is no demonstrable harm or loss to the claimant.
A variety of passing-off defenses have emerged from case law, although in an erratic and somewhat overlapping fashion. The following are the main ones: (a) the defendant's name, mark, or get-up used carefully and honestly; (b) the defendant's or claimant's use of the material other than in commerce; (c) the claimant has no goodwill or the goodwill is owned by another party; (d) the claimant's cooperation, encouragement, or consent to use; and (e) there is no demonstrable harm or loss to the claimant.
- Published on
Remedies for Passing Off
In the event of innocent passing off, the following remedies may be available: (a) an injunction; (b) nominal damages; (c) an account of profits; (d) an order to conceal marks or repackage; (e) an order for the delivering up or destruction of the offending articles; and (f) declarations of rights.
In the event of innocent passing off, the following remedies may be available: (a) an injunction; (b) nominal damages; (c) an account of profits; (d) an order to conceal marks or repackage; (e) an order for the delivering up or destruction of the offending articles; and (f) declarations of rights.
- Published on
International Aspects of Passing Off
While passing off laws are present in other common law nations like Australia and New Zealand, their case law has evolved in distinct ways in certain areas. Civil law nations—the majority of those in Europe, for instance—have laws against unfair competition, which can overlap with passing off laws but are distinct from one another. The legal claim of "palming off," which is comparable to passing off, exists in the US.
While passing off laws are present in other common law nations like Australia and New Zealand, their case law has evolved in distinct ways in certain areas. Civil law nations—the majority of those in Europe, for instance—have laws against unfair competition, which can overlap with passing off laws but are distinct from one another. The legal claim of "palming off," which is comparable to passing off, exists in the US.
- Published on
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 1883
The primary foundation for global responsibilities for unfair competition is the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which underwent its most recent revision in 1979. The following are its principal highlights: (a) Signatory nations to the Convention (now at 171) are required to provide their citizens with adequate protection against unfair competition. (b) Unfair competition is defined as any act of competition that goes against ethical standards in business or industry. (c) Specifically, the following shall be forbidden: (i) any actions that could in any way confuse the establishment, the products, or the commercial or industrial activities of a rival; and (ii) false accusations made in the course of business that could damage the reputation of the competitor's establishment, products, or commercial or industrial activities. The EU's Directive 2005/29 addresses the responsibilities of Member States arising from the Convention. It forbids, among other things, actions that could skew customers' purchasing decisions. This could involve passing off, which is quite similar to utilizing a commercial activity to noticeably hinder the consumer's capacity to make an informed decision.
The primary foundation for global responsibilities for unfair competition is the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which underwent its most recent revision in 1979. The following are its principal highlights: (a) Signatory nations to the Convention (now at 171) are required to provide their citizens with adequate protection against unfair competition. (b) Unfair competition is defined as any act of competition that goes against ethical standards in business or industry. (c) Specifically, the following shall be forbidden: (i) any actions that could in any way confuse the establishment, the products, or the commercial or industrial activities of a rival; and (ii) false accusations made in the course of business that could damage the reputation of the competitor's establishment, products, or commercial or industrial activities. The EU's Directive 2005/29 addresses the responsibilities of Member States arising from the Convention. It forbids, among other things, actions that could skew customers' purchasing decisions. This could involve passing off, which is quite similar to utilizing a commercial activity to noticeably hinder the consumer's capacity to make an informed decision.
- Published on
TRIPS
TRIPS became operative in 1995. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, two major IP agreements dated back to the 1880s and managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), are incorporated into and expanded upon in this version. Among these IPR agreements, TRIPS stands out since WTO membership is a "package deal," which means that countries aren't allowed to select any agreements they want. All of the WTO's multilateral accords, including TRIPS, apply to them. National treatment and most-favorable-nation treatment are two fundamental IP concepts of international trade that TRIPS applies to its member states. TRIPS provides minimal requirements for the accessibility, extent, and utilization of seven types of intellectual property (IP): patents, industrial designs, geographical indications, copyrights, trade marks, patents, integrated circuit layout designs, and concealed information (trade secrets).
It outlines acceptable restrictions and exclusions to strike a balance between IP rights and interests in other domains, such public health and economic growth. However, because TRIPS is more than 25 years old, it does not cover a number of recent advancements, including advanced biotechnology, the Internet and digital copyright issues, and international harmonisation—the process of establishing consistent international legal and practise standards. It establishes the baseline, not the maximum, for IPR protection. Following TRIPS, the WIPO has tackled digital copyright concerns through the "Internet Treaties," which include the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). The summaries of additional WIPO accords that supplement TRIPS, particularly with regard to new technological breakthroughs, are provided below.
TRIPS became operative in 1995. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, two major IP agreements dated back to the 1880s and managed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), are incorporated into and expanded upon in this version. Among these IPR agreements, TRIPS stands out since WTO membership is a "package deal," which means that countries aren't allowed to select any agreements they want. All of the WTO's multilateral accords, including TRIPS, apply to them. National treatment and most-favorable-nation treatment are two fundamental IP concepts of international trade that TRIPS applies to its member states. TRIPS provides minimal requirements for the accessibility, extent, and utilization of seven types of intellectual property (IP): patents, industrial designs, geographical indications, copyrights, trade marks, patents, integrated circuit layout designs, and concealed information (trade secrets).
It outlines acceptable restrictions and exclusions to strike a balance between IP rights and interests in other domains, such public health and economic growth. However, because TRIPS is more than 25 years old, it does not cover a number of recent advancements, including advanced biotechnology, the Internet and digital copyright issues, and international harmonisation—the process of establishing consistent international legal and practise standards. It establishes the baseline, not the maximum, for IPR protection. Following TRIPS, the WIPO has tackled digital copyright concerns through the "Internet Treaties," which include the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). The summaries of additional WIPO accords that supplement TRIPS, particularly with regard to new technological breakthroughs, are provided below.
- Published on
The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks
The 1994 Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) was redesigned and superseded by the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (SLT), which went into effect in March 2009. The TLT was passed in order to standardize trade mark processes across nations and streamline the application and registration processes. Through the TLT, the maximum conditions that a contracting party can impose were established, thereby harmonizing the procedures of national trade mark offices. The TLT granted "equal" validity to service marks and trade marks, which are unique identifiers of companies that provide services rather than goods. In the past, trade marks and service marks were handled differently in several nations. Member countries were obligated by the TLT to register service marks and handle them similarly to trade marks.
The SLT continues this effort by adding provisions that have become required as electronic communications have grown. In terms of time and cost savings for the trade mark owner, the SLT streamlines the process of preparing and submitting application materials. It simplifies the procedures for registering assignments, post-registration renewals, name and address changes, and powers of attorney. The use of multi-class applications, which allow trademark owners to submit a single application covering several classes of products and services, is mandated by SLT member countries.
The SLT's prohibition on national offices requiring the authentication or certification of papers or signatures on trade mark applications and correspondence is another important aspect that helps trade mark owners. Numerous nations mandated that signatures supporting the registration of a mark be notarized or otherwise legalized in compliance with their national laws. In most cases, it is no longer need to go through these processes under the SLT. With the help of this function, trademark owners can complete and file their documents more quickly and cheaply. Harmonizing the initial and renewal terms of trade mark registration among member nations is an additional benefit of the SLT. Ten-year initial terms and subsequent ten-year renewals are stipulated in the SLT.
The SLT has several other important features, such as an intent-to-use application system (which requires proof of use before registration), streamlined renewal processes, a reduction in the number of elements required to obtain an application filing date, and easier ways to record name and ownership changes for trade mark applications and registrations. The SLT's overall goal is to make international trading easier. For people and small enterprises searching for markets abroad, it is especially crucial.
The 1994 Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) was redesigned and superseded by the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (SLT), which went into effect in March 2009. The TLT was passed in order to standardize trade mark processes across nations and streamline the application and registration processes. Through the TLT, the maximum conditions that a contracting party can impose were established, thereby harmonizing the procedures of national trade mark offices. The TLT granted "equal" validity to service marks and trade marks, which are unique identifiers of companies that provide services rather than goods. In the past, trade marks and service marks were handled differently in several nations. Member countries were obligated by the TLT to register service marks and handle them similarly to trade marks.
The SLT continues this effort by adding provisions that have become required as electronic communications have grown. In terms of time and cost savings for the trade mark owner, the SLT streamlines the process of preparing and submitting application materials. It simplifies the procedures for registering assignments, post-registration renewals, name and address changes, and powers of attorney. The use of multi-class applications, which allow trademark owners to submit a single application covering several classes of products and services, is mandated by SLT member countries.
The SLT's prohibition on national offices requiring the authentication or certification of papers or signatures on trade mark applications and correspondence is another important aspect that helps trade mark owners. Numerous nations mandated that signatures supporting the registration of a mark be notarized or otherwise legalized in compliance with their national laws. In most cases, it is no longer need to go through these processes under the SLT. With the help of this function, trademark owners can complete and file their documents more quickly and cheaply. Harmonizing the initial and renewal terms of trade mark registration among member nations is an additional benefit of the SLT. Ten-year initial terms and subsequent ten-year renewals are stipulated in the SLT.
The SLT has several other important features, such as an intent-to-use application system (which requires proof of use before registration), streamlined renewal processes, a reduction in the number of elements required to obtain an application filing date, and easier ways to record name and ownership changes for trade mark applications and registrations. The SLT's overall goal is to make international trading easier. For people and small enterprises searching for markets abroad, it is especially crucial.
- Published on
Patent Law Treaty
On April 28, 2005, the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), which was ratified by WIPO in June 2000, came into effect. The PLT is the result of multinational talks on harmonizing international patent regimes that lasted for several years. The PLT aims to minimize or do away with formalities and the risk of losing rights by harmonizing some aspects of patent application processes. The laws of each nation that specify the requirements needed to obtain a patent for an invention there are known as substantive patent law, and the PLT does not harmonize these laws. Nonetheless, WIPO is now having discussions about harmonizing substantive patent law. The PLT streamlines and, to a considerable extent, combines national and international formal requirements related to patent applications and patents, making it simpler for patent applicants and owners to obtain and maintain patents around the globe.
The Patent Law Treaty (PLT) has several key features. Firstly, it reduces and streamlines the requirements for obtaining a filing date for patent applications. Secondly, it limits the formal requirements that contracting parties can impose. Thirdly, it eases the representation requirements for formal matters. Fourthly, it provides a basis for the electronic filing of applications. Fifth, it offers relief from time limits that may be imposed by the Office of a Contracting Party. In cases where an applicant or owner has failed to comply with a time limit, the Office of a Contracting Party may impose relief. Finally, the PLT allows for the correction or addition of priority claims and the restoration of priority rights.
On April 28, 2005, the Patent Law Treaty (PLT), which was ratified by WIPO in June 2000, came into effect. The PLT is the result of multinational talks on harmonizing international patent regimes that lasted for several years. The PLT aims to minimize or do away with formalities and the risk of losing rights by harmonizing some aspects of patent application processes. The laws of each nation that specify the requirements needed to obtain a patent for an invention there are known as substantive patent law, and the PLT does not harmonize these laws. Nonetheless, WIPO is now having discussions about harmonizing substantive patent law. The PLT streamlines and, to a considerable extent, combines national and international formal requirements related to patent applications and patents, making it simpler for patent applicants and owners to obtain and maintain patents around the globe.
The Patent Law Treaty (PLT) has several key features. Firstly, it reduces and streamlines the requirements for obtaining a filing date for patent applications. Secondly, it limits the formal requirements that contracting parties can impose. Thirdly, it eases the representation requirements for formal matters. Fourthly, it provides a basis for the electronic filing of applications. Fifth, it offers relief from time limits that may be imposed by the Office of a Contracting Party. In cases where an applicant or owner has failed to comply with a time limit, the Office of a Contracting Party may impose relief. Finally, the PLT allows for the correction or addition of priority claims and the restoration of priority rights.
- Published on
Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks
Adopted on June 27, 1989 in Madrid, Spain's capital, the Madrid Protocol relates to the Madrid Agreement concerning the international registration of marks and came into force on December 1, 1995. The Protocol is one of two treaties establishing the Madrid System for international registration of trade marks. The Madrid Agreement of 1891 was the first treaty to allow for the submission of a single worldwide trade mark registration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, which would thereafter serve to register the mark in several countries. The Madrid Protocol was created to enhance the system for international registration of trade marks after several nations had difficulties with the Madrid Agreement's implementation. As a result, each year an increasing number of trademark holders resort to the Madrid Protocol in order to secure trademark protection in international markets. The Madrid Protocol has been ratified by 128 nations. As a filing treaty rather than a convention to harmonize substantive laws, the Madrid Protocol is less controversial. Trademark holders (including individuals and businesses) can save time and money by filing a single application with a single agency (in a single language) for protection in several countries (paying a single set of fees) in a single currency.
Moreover, no local agent is needed to file the application. Any of these languages can be used to submit an application. An international registration application is equivalent to a national registration application for the mark in each of the applicant's specified countries. Once protection has been granted by the trade mark office in a chosen nation, the mark enjoys the same legal standing as if it had been registered with that office. Since a single procedure is all that is needed to record subsequent changes in ownership or in the name or address of the holder with WIPO's International Bureau, the Madrid Protocol also streamlines subsequent management of the mark.
Before the Protocol was implemented, it was typically difficult for trade mark owners to carry out valid assignments of their marks worldwide due to the onerous administrative requirements for the regular transfer of company assets. To record an assignment of a trade mark with all member nations, the Protocol allows the holder of an international registration to submit a single request with a single payment.
Registration renewal likewise comprises a simple, single procedural procedure. International registration lasts 10 years, with 10-year renewal periods. If trademark owners elect to seek protection in more than one member country, or if more nations agree to the Protocol, they may specify additional countries. The Madrid Protocol allows the holder of an international registration to convert it into a series of national applications in each designated country within five years of the cancellation of the basic application or registration on which the international registration is based.
The priority date of the initial international registration is preserved in each of these national applications. In the event that international registration fails, the holder is nonetheless protected by the rights obtained in each member country.
- Published on
The Hague System for the International Deposit of Industrial Designs
The Hague System is an international registration system that facilitates the straightforward and inexpensive protection of industrial designs worldwide. To avoid repeating the application process in multiple Hague System states and/or intergovernmental organizations, applicants can instead file a single international application with WIPO's International Bureau. The subsequent management of the foreign registration is substantially easier under this system. For example, one single step is all that is needed to register a change in the name or location of the holder, or a change in ownership for some or for all of the authorized contractual parties. There are now 77 signatory states to the Hague Convention.
The Hague System is an international registration system that facilitates the straightforward and inexpensive protection of industrial designs worldwide. To avoid repeating the application process in multiple Hague System states and/or intergovernmental organizations, applicants can instead file a single international application with WIPO's International Bureau. The subsequent management of the foreign registration is substantially easier under this system. For example, one single step is all that is needed to register a change in the name or location of the holder, or a change in ownership for some or for all of the authorized contractual parties. There are now 77 signatory states to the Hague Convention.