Trade mark and passing off disputes

A trade mark may be registered or unregistered. Its essential function is to be a badge of origin distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. In order to fulfil this function, a trade mark needs to be distinctive. Disputes arise when a third party uses a trade mark that is too close to an existing trade mark, potentially resulting in consumer confusion and erosion of that essential distinctiveness.

Generally speaking, trade mark and passing off disputes go hand in hand. It is common for a claimant asserting that its registered trade mark has been infringed to include an allegation of passing off, at least initially.

For more information, see Practice Notes:

•
Trade mark infringement—UK
•
Passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation and damage
•
Trade mark and passing off disputes—a practical guide

Registered trade marks in the UK

The law relating to UK trade mark registrations is set out in the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994), which implemented Directive (EU) 2015/2436 into UK law (and previously, its predecessors, Directive 89/104/EEC and Directive 2008/95/EC).

The

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest IP News

IP weekly highlights—5 December 2024

This week's edition of IP weekly highlights includes: a hand-picked summary of news analysis, updates and new content from the world of IP. These highlights focus on the key rights of copyright and associated rights, database rights, trade marks and passing off, designs, and patents as well as covering issues relating to confidential information, know-how R&D and IP disputes all mainly from a UK and European perspective.

Supreme Court to hear Emotional Perception case regarding the patentability of an AI system

Law360, London: The UK Supreme Court will weigh in on whether an artificial intelligence (AI) company's invention constitutes a computer programme, in a high-profile case that could set new patentability guidelines for the technology.

The 'family' of brands concept

IP analysis: Thalia Stowell, Trade Mark Attorney at Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP, discusses the concept of a ‘family’ of brands, what are its characteristics, how a family of brands might be relevant to a claim for trade mark infringement or validity, and what practical steps should be taken to ensure that a family of brands has a strong visual identity.

Does YouTube Shorts infringe registrations of SHORTS marks and are those registrations valid? (Shorts International Ltd v Google Llc)

IP analysis: The proceedings relate to Google’s YouTube Shorts service. Shorts International Ltd (SIL) claimed that Google’s use of certain signs in relation to its YouTube Shorts service amounted to infringement of SIL’s registered trade marks and passing off. Google claimed that there was no infringement or passing off and that SIL’s registered trade marks were invalid or should be revoked for non-use. It was held that, at the various relevant dates, most of SIL’s trade marks were valid, though the word mark ‘SHORTSTV’ was invalid for most goods and services, and that the other marks should be revoked for non-use for some goods and services. However, all SIL’s trade marks had low inherent distinctive character, and SIL’s use of its trade marks in the UK had not been extensive enough to claim enhanced distinctiveness. None of Google’s uses of signs including the word ‘shorts’ would give rise to a likelihood of confusion as to origin. There were significant similarities between the signs used by Google which included the word ‘shorts’ and SIL’s trade marks, but the similarities were for the descriptive elements rather than the elements of SIL’s trade marks which had some (but low) distinctive character. While SIL had protectable goodwill associated with its trade marks among a limited group of UK consumers, Google’s signs did not misrepresent its service as being provided by SIL or in some way authorised by SIL. Therefore, there was no passing off. Written by Milena Velikova, trade mark attorney and Helene Whelbourn, legal director at Lee & Thompson LLP.