关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

特立尼达和多巴哥

TT006-j

返回

No. 403 of 1937

This case concerned an allegation of passing off by the defendant of the claimant’s trademark “Florsheim”. Florsheim, a registered trademark in the United States of America (USA), started trading in Trinidad and Tobago in 1931 but went into liquidation in 1935.

By April 1934, the defendant applied for and obtained registration for the Florsheim trademark. The claimant attempted to sell their shoes with a local company, but the company refused the sale citing the registration of a trademark with the same name.

In coming to its decision, the court relied on the case of Reddaway v Banham [1896] A.C 199 and its articulation of the principle of passing off: “…the mere proof by the plaintiff that the defendant was using a name, word, or device which he had adopted to distinguish his goods would not entitle him to any relief. He could only obtain it by proving further that the defendant was using it under such circumstances or in such manner as to put off his goods as the goods of the plaintiff.”

While the defense pleaded that the claimant could have registered the mark under the Ordinance, the court was of the view that it was not necessary for the claimant to register. The question was raised as to whether the claimant abandoned their right to the claim due to the liquidation and there being no sales for a period of time. However, the court held that liquidation did not cause the claimant to abandon the trade name and design in Trinidad and Tobago with regards to the shoes, and no evidence shows that they had any intention to do so.

The claimant requested an order that the Registrar General rectify the register and remedy the alleged fraud of the defendant by expunging the entry. On the question of fraud, the court was very clear that there was “fraud, deception and dishonesty of the defendant” (para 22), as they knew the reputation the shoes had on the market and their actions were mean to exploit the company’s trade names and design. The court further held that the defendant registered the mark with full knowledge that it was ‘calculated to deceive’ within the meaning of s. 41 of the Ordinance. As such, the mark was not legally registrable under the Ordinance.

The court accepted the defendant’s argument that it had no statutory power to grant such an order, but as a court of equity, it was of the view that it cannot allow a statute to be an instrument of fraud and therefore ordered the defendant to be removed the entry from the Register of Trade Marks.

The court made the following order:

Declaration that the registration of the trademark by the defendant was calculated to deceive, is fraudulent and should be set aside

Defendant to cancel the registration of the trademark

Defendant, servants, and agents be perpetually restrained from selling or offering for sale or advertising for sale the trade name of “Florsheim”

Defendant to deliver all footwear, boxes, wrappers, advertisements etc., bearing the name “Florsheim” to the claimant’s agents.

Inquiry into the profits made by the defendants, with the defendants to pay such profits to the claimant

Cases referred to: Reddaway v Banham [1896] A.C. 199, Angus v Angus, 25 E.R. 800, McCormic v Grogan, 4 E & I Appeals 82, McAndrew v Bassett O1864), 10 L.T. 442 (H.L.), Orr-Ewing & Co. v Johnson & Co., 13 Ch. D. 434 (C.A) and 7 App. Cas. 219 (H.L.)