Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2006 123(14):453-479; doi:10.1093/rpc/2006rpc16
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

[2006] R.P.C. 16

SMIRNOFF TRADE MARKS

Trade Marks Registry

(Mr M. Knight): April 24 and 25 and November 23, 20011

[2006] R.P.C. 16

Trade marks—SMIRNOFF trade marks for vodka—Applications for revocation and declarations of invalidity—Alleged false claim to proprietorship—Bad faith—Marks incorporating indicia connoting a Russian connection—Whether marks deceptive—Test for deceptiveness—Whether marks prohibited by law—Whether marks were or contained false trade descriptions.

Key Words: Deception • Declarations of invalidity • Ownership • Revocation • Spirits • Trade descriptions • Trade marks

1 Paragraph numbers in this judgment are as assigned by the court. This case has been drawn to the Editor's attention as being the only decision to date involving s.3(3)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. This decision was upheld on appeal in the High Court ([2003]] EWHC 970 (Ch), April 7, 2003) which held that there had been no error in the decision of the hearing officer. This latter decision is not reported here.


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.