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

TT009-j

返回

H.C.A. No. 550 of 2003

This High Court case concerned an application by Nestle Trinidad and Tobago challenging seven trademarks registered under the Trademark Act (TMA) by “Dairy Distributors Ltd.” The claim objects to the pure word marks (Nos. B 18927, B 28855 and 22362) and word marks used in combination with particular ‘get ups’ (Nos. B 27065, B28802, B28803, B27064). The applicant seeks to have the marks expunged from the Register of Trademarks (RTM) pursuant to section 46 of the Act.

The judgment offers a review of the history of the parties relative to the action, an overview of the Trademark Act with regards to the powers of the court, section 13(b) and 16(b) of the Trademark Act.

The respondent started operations in Trinidad and Tobago in 1991, selling powdered milk with the words “Dairy Dairy”. The applicant did not challenge that the respondent was the only producer and distributor of powdered milk bearing the ‘get up’ of a splash of white liquid on the local market.

With regards to the pure marks, exclusive use was granted to the respondent for ‘Dairy Dairy’. The applicant submitted that the mark ‘Dairy Dairy’ was generic and described a class of goods contrary to section 13(b) of the Act. The challenge to the combination marks alleged that they incorporated the phrase ‘Dairy Dairy’ and that the image of a white splash and a glass of milk is common to the trade, is not distinctive in character and therefore contravenes section 16(b) of the Act.

It is important to note that the respondent brought a claim for trademark infringement for the applicant’s alleged use of a white splash of liquid into a glass on its products. An interim injunctive relief application, submitted against applicant (Nestle) from using the get up was refused and a date was set for trial. The trial date of that case [H.C.A No. 528 of 2003] and the instant trial coincided.

Does the mark “Dairy Dairy” contain words that generically designate milk or milk products?

The court took a practical and purposive approach to this question and treated the word ‘dairy dairy’ as a compound and inventive word as it would have been, in their view, fictitious to dissect the word.

“I am satisfied that the mark ‘Dairy Dairy’ is a single distinctive compound word which is not intended to and does not generically designate the types of goods to which it applies, but rather identifies the product of the manufacturer (Dairy Manufacturers Ltd.) in a distinctive and unique way.” – p. 10.

The court issued an order pursuant to section 16(b) that the mark be varied by the Respondent incorporating a disclaimer to the exclusive use of the word ‘dairy’. The order did not affect the registration of the mark.

Is the device of the pour and splash common and open to the trade to use?

The applicants submitted that the device with the white liquid being poured with a splash is common to the trade and open to the trade to use. A survey carried out by a research firm gathered customers’ feedback to ascertain the distinctiveness of the mark. The court relied on the survey results in their analysis.

Evidence was submitted which showed that the device of a liquid white pour and splash is widely used internationally throughout the beverage industry to show milk and milk products. As such, it was held that that the combination of the white pour and splash is common to the trade as contemplated by s. 16(b) of the Act.

Is the liquid white pour and splash non-distinctive in character?

The applicant submitted that the white pour and splash was unique and distinctive in character. According to the court, “the distinctiveness of this device when isolated must be determined by whether the ordinary viewer could recall it as distinctive when compared to other white pours and splashes considered separately” (p. 13). The court found the liquid white pour and splash to be non-distinctive when isolated from the rest of the get up. However, the application brought by the applicants was to expunge the combination of the marks from the Register.

It was conclusively held that the combination of marks which consisted of the ‘get up’ and the word ‘Dairy Dairy’ are, in their totality, distinctive in character. The court did not find it to be just or equitable to expunge the mark from the Register of Trademarks given that the mark and the ‘get up’ combined is distinctive. As such, the mark was permitted to remain on the Register provided that a disclaimer is given with respect to the exclusive use of the liquid white pour and splash. In other words, the registration gave no right to the exclusive use by the respondent of the white pour and splash, separate and apart from the marks.

Both parties submitted cases in support of and against whether compound and combination of ordinary English words remain distinctive.

Cases referred to (non-exhaustive list): Univer Plc’s Trade Mark [1984] RPC 155, Pepsi-Cola Company of Canada v Coca-Cola Company of Canada [1940] S.C.R. 17, Chaseside Engineering Coy’s Ltd. Application for a Trade Mark [1956] R.P.C 73, Wheat Company Ltd. V Kellogg Company of Canada Ltd.