Skip Navigation

Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases 2008 125(2):143-186; doi:10.1093/rpc/rcn002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Crown Copyright

[2008] R.P.C. 6

esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc

High Court of Justice (CHANCERY DIVISION)

(Lindsay J.): May 22–24 and June 29, 20071

[2008] R.P.C. 6

Trade mark—Application—Device mark of computer mouse on wheels for insurance and financial services—Opposition—Earlier device mark of telephone on wheels for insurance and financial services—Whether likelihood of confusion—Whether later mark took unfair advantage of or was detrimental to distinctive character or repute of later mark—Registration refused—Appeal to High Court—Whether threshold limit for similarity—Whether hearing officer correct in rejecting survey evidence—Whether sufficient other evidence to establish likelihood of association—Whether mere risk of unfair advantage or detriment sufficient—Whether errors of principle in hearing officer's assessment of the evidence—Blurring—Fettering—Tarnishing


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.