Figleaf facebook8/5/2023 ![]() All the example shows is that the combination of NOW and TV viewed in the context of an advertisement which is carefully designed to convey the message that NOW TV is the name of a new service provided by Sky has some distinctive character. He further submitted this showed that NOW was inherently distinctive for a television service. He submitted, and I accept, that it was clear that Sky expected the reader to understand that NOW TV was the name of its new internet television service and that the reader would get the message. He cited as a good example some of Sky's advertisements, which feature the question "What's on NOW TV tonight?". Counsel for PCCW's core submission was that, viewed in context, NOW would be perceived by the average consumer as a brand name, rather than as a description of any characteristic of the services in question, even if it was understood to allude to such a characteristic. As counsel were agreed, context is everything. (iv) PCCW's claims for passing off fail".Īs to whether Starbucks' Community trade mark was validly registered, the learned judge conducted a lengthy and detailed review both of the law and of the mark, concluding as follows (at to (iii) If the CTM were valid and Sky's use was within Article 9(1)(b) of the CTM Regulation, Sky would not have a defence under Article 12(b). (ii) Even if the CTM is valid, Sky have not infringed it. "(i) The CTM is invalid under Article 7(1)(c), alternatively Article 7(1)(b), of the CTM Regulation. So, to cut to the chase, the bottom line] is as follows (to quote the judge)at : Since the case has only just come online and the weekend is pressing, this will be only a short, holding post, which may be followed by a further and more analytical one once this Kat has had the chance to digest nearly 160 paragraphs of the hard stuff. The mark was registered for, among other things, ""telecommunication services … telecommunication of information (web pages), computer programs and data … radio and television communication services … television broadcasting services broadcasting and transmission of radio and television programmes cable television broadcasting … transmission of music, films, interactive programmes, videos, electronic computer games" (Class 38). The Community trade mark of the claimants (referred to, collectively, as PCCW, though Starbucks was the first-named) is illustrated above, right, while Sky's allegedly infringing mark is above, left. In EMI (IP) Ltd and others v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and another EWHC 1644 (Ch), noted here by the IPKat, John Baldwin QC ordered a stay of the infringement claim after weighing up the likely damage to Sky if it were not ordered, while in Starbucks (UK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc & Others EWHC 1842 (Ch), noted here on the IPKat's weblog by guest blogger Kingsley Egbuonu, Arnold J refused a stay but ordered a speedy trial.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |