Ipswich Solicitors

The High Court has confirmed that a trade mark refers to the general impression given by the mark, not to the details of the mark and this can include auditory and conceptual factors as well as purely visual ones.

 

The important issue is whether the average consumer would be misled bearing in mind that the mark is perceived as a whole, not by its individual parts.

 

Merely creating a mark that is subtly different from a trade mark may well be insufficient to prevent an action for violation of the trade mark or ‘passing off’ (deriving an economic benefit from it) if the overall impression is similar. For advice on all trade mark and other intellectual property matters, contact us.

In a recent case involving the break-up of a limited liability partnership (LLP), a partner who had been effectively expelled by the other members made an offer to them, in open correspondence (correspondence which is not legally privileged), that they should buy out his share in the LLP at fair market value.

 

The offer was rejected. When the case went to court, the court ordered that the ex-partner’s share should be bought out by the other members of the partnership at fair market value.

 

Because he had made the offer in open correspondence, the court ruled that the ex-partner’s costs should be settled on an ‘indemnity’ basis, which means he will receive approximately 90 per cent of his costs from the losers. Normally, the winner can expect to receive about 70 per cent of their costs from the loser.

The courts generally react favourably to litigants who are shown to have tried to adopt a reasonable approach.

 

We can help you negotiate a successful outcome to your commercial dispute.