| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Crown Copyright
HORMEL FOODS CORP v ANTILLES LANDSCAPE INVESTMENTS NV
(Richard Arnold Q.C. sitting as a deputy High Court judge): November 30–December 3, 2004, January 24, 20051
[2005] EWHC 13 (Ch); [2005] R.P.C. 28
Trade mark—SPAMBUSTER in stylised script for computer programming—Claimant seeking declaration of invalidity or revocation—SPAM for canned meats—Defendant seeking declaration of invalidity or revocation—Claimant previously unsuccessful before Registry in seeking declaration of invalidity on different grounds—Whether cause of action estoppel—Whether abuse of process—Whether SPAMBUSTER descriptive—Whether SPAMBUSTER in stylised script prohibited by s.3(1)(c) of Trade Marks Act 1994—Distinction between stylised word marks and device marks—Whether SPAMBUSTER in stylised script devoid of distinctive character—Whether mark generic for computer programming services at date of application for registration—Whether mark had acquired distinctive character through use—Whether mark had become generic—Whether sufficient to show that mark had become a common name—Whether sufficient to show defendant's inactivity was a cause of the mark becoming generic—Whether SPAM had distinctive character at date of application for registration—Whether SPAM had become generic for tinned meats.
Key Words: Abuse of process • Cause of action estoppel • Declarations of invalidity • Generic terms • Revocation • Trade marks
1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court.