NIPC Law

RED DAWG RED BULL Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Adam Johnson)  Monster Energy Company v Red Bull GmbH [2022] EWHC 2155 (Ch) (12 Aug 2022) One of the grounds for opposing a trade mark is that it is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark that has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.  That raises the question of what constitutes "unfair advantage" of an earlier mark.  A case that sheds light on that issue is Mr Justice Adam Johnson's decision in  Monster Energy Company v Red Bull GmbH [2022] EWHC 2155 (Ch) (12 Aug 2022), This was an appeal against Mr James Hopkin's decision in Re RED DAWG trade mark, Red Bull GmbH v Momster Energy Company  in BLO/636/21 of 26 Aug 2021 refusing registration of trade mark number 3497054 under s.5 (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.  He set...

The IPO in Newport - where the hearing officers are to be found Crown Copyright Licensed by the IPO Jane Lambert An exception to the rule that a trade mark registration cannot be challenged for non-use in the first 5 years after registration is where the application to register the trade mark was made in "bad faith". The legislative mechanism is provided by s.47 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994: "The registration of a trade mark may be declared invalid on the ground that the trade mark was registered in breach of section 3 or any of the provisions referred to in that section (absolute grounds for refusal of registration)." Subsection (6) of s.3 provides: "A trade mark shall not be registered if or to the extent that the application is made in bad faith." But what does "bad faith" mean exactly? In  Hotel Cipriani SRL and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and others   [2009] Bus LR D81, [2008] EWHC 3032 (Ch), [2...