NIPC Law

The new Company Names Tribunal,  which I mentioned in my announcement of our chambers new fixed fee service on 10 November, has just published its first three decisions. They are: The Coca-Cola Company v  Coke Cola Limited Zurich Insurance Company v  Zurich Financial Special Risk Limited , and Zurich Insurance Company v  Zurich Financial Special Risk Limited . None of the respondents defended the applications and the adjudicators found for the applicants in all three cases. Costs of £700 were awarded (£400 for the issue fee and £300 for the statement of case). Our fee for settling a statement of case is £300 + VAT. Merry Christmas!

One of the many innovations of the Companies Act 2006   is a right under s.69  to object to the incorporation of a company in a name that is: (a)   the same as a name associated with the person raising the objection in which the objector has goodwill; or (b)   so similar to such a name that its use in the United Kingdom would be likely to mislead by suggesting a connection between the company and the objector.   Examples of cases where those circumstances occurred include  Glaxo Plc v. Glaxowellcome Limited  [1996] FSR 388 and  Direct Line Group Limited v. Direct Line Estate Agency  [1997] FSR 374.   In Glaxo, for instance ,. the defendants incorporated Glaxowellcome shortly after a merger between Glaxo and the Wellcome group had been announced in the hope of extracting a ransom for the name from the new holding company.  Those cases anticipated the practice of domain name squatting which led to a number of expensive trade mark infringement and passing off actions such as  Pitman Trai...