Trade Marks - NAH Holdings Ltd v KBF Enterprises Ltd

Author Aurelien Guichard Licence  CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikimedia

 









Jane Lambert
Intellectual Property Enterproise Court (HH Judge Hacon) NAH Holdings Ltd and another KBF Enterprises Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 323 (IPEC) (16 Feb 2022)

The latest definition of a trade mark is 

"any sign which is capable- 
(a) of being represented in the register in a manner which enables the registrar and other competent authorities and thepublic to determine the clear and precise subject matter of the protection afforded to the proprietor,and 
(b) of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings" (see s.1 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as amended). 

One of the grounds for refusing registration of a sign as a trade mark is that it does not satisfy the requirements of that section.

Unsurprisingly there are very few cases on that point but one in which it was raised was NAH Holdings Ltd and another v KBF Enterprises Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 323. This was an action for trade mark infringement under s.10 (2) of the Act that came on before Judge Hacon on 16 Feb 2022.  It had been brought by the proprietor of the trade marks UK00002626042 and UK00916905317. Both registrations were for "SLIM SAUCE" for "Sauce for food, pasta sauce, zero calorie sauce". The defendants had used the sign "SLIM SAUCES" for basically slim sauces. The claimants sought summary judgment on the ground that th defendants were out of time in serving a defence.

Save for the obvious point that it serving a pleading out of time is not one of the grounds for summary judgment the main defence was that the marks in suit did not satisfy the requirements of s.1(1) of the Act.  His Honour considered that point at para [22] of his judgment:

"The principal issue raised under s.3 (1) (b) and (c) of the 1994 Act is whether the SLIM SAUCES trade marks are devoid of any distinctive character. The claimants say that I can dismiss such a possibility without evidence. I certainly believe it to be unlikely that their case under either s.3 (1) (b) or s.3 (1) (c) will succeed. But I am not prepared to say without evidence that there is no real prospect of the defendants succeeding under either head of the Counterclaim. There is just enough doubt for me to believe the prospect is better than fanciful, though not by much."

The learned judge was reluctant to do more than let the claim go forward. The rules  Para 5.1 (4) of PD Part 24 provides for the possibility of a conditional order. He invited the parties to make written submissions on the point.

Anyone wishing to discuss this case may call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br...
Read more

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more