C ran a dating website in America called ‘Plenty of Fish’, which was free to join. D, a British company, set up a pay-for-use dating website in UK called ‘Plenty More Fish’, and had this registered as trademark. C claimed that D was profiting from its goodwill. C claimed that:
1) its website was heavily visited by UK internet users, and that these people were C’s customers
2) even if the website users did not constitute customers, a mere ‘trade connection’ to UK suffices to give a business goodwill in the UK.
Held:
First argument
· Is possible for customer to be someone using a service for free.
· However mere act of visiting C’s website does not make someone a customer
· To be customer, person visiting website must actually become a member and sign up to use C’s services.
Second argument
· A mere ‘trade connection’ to UK does not suffice
Ø i.e. this argument was not accepted in Pete Waterman Case.
· Thus fact that C’s reputation in UK earns him money(from adverts) does not suffice to show goodwill in absence of UK customers
