Claimant was well-established American airline with worldwide reputation, Claimant was a relatively new Bangladeshi airline which had chosen name ‘United Airways’.
Claimant sued under all of sections 10(1)-(3) for infringement of its trade marks.
Where Defendant deliberately chooses his name so as to benefit from someone else’s reputation, cannot rely on own name defence.
Even where this is not case, defence cannot be relied upon unless there is good reason why likelihood of confusion should be tolerated.
I.e. where Defendant had alternative names to choose from, must show a reason why he used the name in question.
On facts, defence did not apply.
These are case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrased) I made...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Conflict of Laws BCL | Airbus Industrie V. Patel Notes (2 pages) |
Conflict of Laws BCL | British Airways Board V. Laker Airways Notes (2 pages) |
Intellectual Property Law | Trade Mark Case Law Notes (68 pages) |