Claimant was a successful pop-music production company known to UK public as ‘The Hit Factory’. Claimant did not trade as ‘the Hit Factory’, but had released three compilation albums of their hits under that title.
Defendant, a record company who owned a studio in London, entered into agreement with owner of a studio in New York for refurbishment and running of London studio. New York company had traded as ‘The Hit Factory’ since 1970, and granted licence to Defendant to use that name.
Claimant sued for passing off.
Held:
I personally believe test of whether Claimant had a ‘trade connection’ to UK is preferable
However because of previous higher authority, the most liberal interpretation it is possible to give test is that Claimant needs UK customers
On facts, New York studio has had substantial number of customers in UK since its creation
Thus is entitled to use its name within the UK
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. Th...
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.