Source: http://nipclaw.blogspot.com/2013/07/trade-mark-infringement-and-passing-off.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-19 17:50:51
Document Index: 341383906

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 9', 'CJEU ', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 7', 'art 52', 'art 9']

In British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others v Microsoft Corporation Microsoft and another [2013] EWHC 1826 (Ch), Sky (that is to say British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Limited, British Sky Broadcasting Limited and Sky International AG) sued Microsoft (Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Luxembourg Sarl) for infringement of its British and Community trade marks and passing off while Microsoft counterclaimed for declarations of invalidity of Sky's trade marks on grounds of descriptiveness and impermissible amendment.
for an online storage facility for its Windows, tablet and smartphone users. The sign that Microsoft now uses is:
In an appendix to her judgment, the trial judge Mrs Justice Asplin assembled the following examples:
Sky claimed for infringement of its UK marks under s.10 (2) and (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and art 9 (1) (b) and (c) of the CTM Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ 24.3.2009 L78/1).
A comprehensive drubbing then. Not something that Microsoft is used to.
Microsoft does not take reverses of this order lying down but this is going to be a hard judgment to appeal. Mrs Justice Asplin was careful - ultra careful - in her analysis of the law citing every relevant English and CJEU authority that I had heard of and even one or two that I hadn't. That part of her judgment is 77 paragraphs long (paragraph [70] to [147].
As to the claim under s.10 (2) (a) and the corresponding provision under the Regulation, she concluded at [148]
Her ladyship came to a similar conclusion in respect of the claim under s.10 (2) (b) and art 9 (1) (b) at
paragraph [177]:
"it seems to me that if one undertakes a global assessment, given all the matters to which I referred under the "identity" head which are also relevant here, together with the similarity in goods and services to which the UKTM and the CTMs and the sign relates, the descriptive nature of "drive" and the dominant remaining part of the sign being "Sky", there is a likelihood of confusion in the average consumer who is a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant user of the relevant internet services."
As to the claim under s.10 (3) and art 9 (1) (c), the judge directed herself at paragraph [226] that it is not necessary to show a likelihood of confusion but there must be a "link" between the sign and the mark in the mind of the average consumer. Furthermore, it is also necessary to show that the mark has a reputation in the relevant territory. In the subsequent 8 paragraphs, she found that those elements were established and that Microsoft's use of the sign was without due course.
As to passing off, she referred to Lord Oliver's famous speech in Reckitt & Coleman v Borden [1990] RPC 341 at 406. She found no dispute as to Sky's reputation and in view of her earlier findings on the trade mark matters she concluded that there had been misrepresentation from which damage flowed as a natural result. Accordingly, that head too was made out.
The counterclaim for invalidity was largely based on the absence of distinctiveness under s.3 (1) (b) and (c) and art 7 of the CTM Regulation. The learned judge did not accept any of that. Upon the evidence before her, the word SKY was distinctive in relation to online storage. There was a secondary argument that an amendment of the registration was made in bad faith in that it had somehow widened the specification. The power to disallow registrations made in bad faith was under art 52 of the CTM Regulation which the judge did not consider applicable in this case.
art 9 British Sky Broadcasting Community Microsoft Passing off regulation s.10 (2) s.10 (3) Trade Marks
samsung customer care number said…