Hylly
Henkilönnimi
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Pins and needles : Henry Martinez t/a Prick v Prick Me Baby One More Time t/a Prick. England & Wales High Court - 11 April 2018
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa Intellectual Property Magazine, ISSN 2044-7175 ; 6
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. This very interesting case filled with innuendos and double meanings concerning a dispute over the use of the word prick shows how important the process of gathering evidence is in order to succeed in passing off claims. It is clear that Martinez was displeased that someone else came up with the same idea of using the word prick in a cheeky manner to describe their business, especially so close to his own tattoo parlour. Unfortunately, he had not registered a trademark, which may well have assisted him. Instead, he needed to rely on passing off, which, whilst flexible, is heavily dependent on the evidence. What evidence Martinez had came from his friends who, instead of using a more believable medium of communication, chose to share their concerns via a contact form on his website. Their witness statements and evidence given under cross-examination were inconsistent and far-fetched. It seems that it might have been a better idea for Martinez to wait until he gathered enough evidence of actual misrepresentation and, if there was none, then clearly that would have been good news for him as it would have meant that his business had not been adversely affected by the cactus shop.
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00002134nab a22003014a 4500
*00112737
*00520201106111838.0
*007tu
*008180828s2018\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035 $a25468
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000025468
*0410 $aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-IN45
*1001 $aBorucka, Magdalena.
*24510$aPins and needles :$bHenry Martinez t/a Prick v Prick Me Baby One More Time t/a Prick. England & Wales High Court - 11 April 2018 /$cMagdalena Borucka.
*260 $c2018.
*300 $a56-57.
*4901 $aIntellectual Property Magazine,$x2044-7175 ;$v6
*520 $aThis very interesting case filled with innuendos and double meanings concerning a dispute over the use of the word prick shows how important the process of gathering evidence is in order to succeed in passing off claims. It is clear that Martinez was displeased that someone else came up with the same idea of using the word prick in a cheeky manner to describe their business, especially so close to his own tattoo parlour. Unfortunately, he had not registered a trademark, which may well have assisted him. Instead, he needed to rely on passing off, which, whilst flexible, is heavily dependent on the evidence. What evidence Martinez had came from his friends who, instead of using a more believable medium of communication, chose to share their concerns via a contact form on his website. Their witness statements and evidence given under cross-examination were inconsistent and far-fetched. It seems that it might have been a better idea for Martinez to wait until he gathered enough evidence of actual misrepresentation and, if there was none, then clearly that would have been good news for him as it would have meant that his business had not been adversely affected by the cactus shop.
*599 $bpdf informaatikolla.
*653 $aOIKEUSTAPAUKSET
*653 $aSANASTOT
*653 $aLIIKETOIMINTA
*653 $aTAVARAMERKIT
*653 $aREKISTERÖINTI
*8102 $aIntellectual Property Magazine,$x2044-7175 ;$v6
*852 $hSA-IN45$cBORUCKA
*979 $a0000025468
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.