Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2005 122(16):551-568; doi:10.1093/rpc/2005rpc21
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2005] R.P.C. 21

CREDITMASTER TRADE MARK

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

(Peter Smith J.): July 8, 20041

[2004] EWHC 1623 (Ch); [2005] R.P.C. 21

Trade mark—Application—Opposition—CREDITMASTER—Earlier rights—MASTERCARD—Amendment to grounds of opposition refused—Opposition dismissed—Costs above the usual scale—Appeal to the High Court—Whether mark would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to character or repute of earlier trade mark—Whether presumption of dilution leading to detriment where mark had reputation—Whether evidence required to establish detriment—Whether "similar" had the same meaning in the different sub-sections of s.5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994—Whether hearing officer had applied the linkage test or the confusion test in s.5(3) of the Act—Costs awarded in the absence of a bill of costs—Whether indemnity principle likely to have been breached—Whether to remit costs to hearing officer for reassessment—Whether to re-assess costs on the appeal—Whether decision of hearing officer on costs reasonable.

Key Words: Amendments • Costs • Detriment • Dilution • Earlier trade marks • Similarity • Sufficiency of evidence

1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.