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

TT010-j

返回

(1972) 20 WIR 445

This case concerns an application for injunction owing to an alleged trademark infringement and passing off.

The claimants initially exported their goods to Trinidad and Tobago, but in 1970, they licensed a local company to manufacture the goods. The product had a registered trademark, which was due to expire on June 8, 1976. The mark comprised of a bunch of mixed temperate fruit with the words ‘Fruit of the Loom’ inscribed above the fruit and was registered in Class 38 with respect to clothing. The goods were sold in a clear plastic bag bearing the registered mark.

In February 1976, the defendants obtained registration of a similar mark in the classes of cotton piece goods and synthetic fibers, including sheets and pillowcases. The defendants sold similar goods in clear plastic bags with a label that was alleged to be similar to the claimants, thereby causing confusion; the bag had a label with a branch of mixed fruit and the words ‘Tropical Fruits’ printed in the same or similar print as the claimant’s product.

A letter was sent to the defendant by the claimant informing them of the infringement and requesting that they cease using the trademark or otherwise face legal action. The defendant responded, denying any infringement but offering to discontinue the brand if permitted to use the remaining 20,000 plastic bags that were in stock, noting that it was a former partner’s idea to use the imagery on the plastic bags. The claimant agreed to allow the defendants to use the bags up until December 31, 1976, but a request for an extension was made owing to the defendant not being able to manufacture goods due to a shortage of material. An extension was granted with an undertaking that damages will be paid if the goods continue to be sold past the deadline. No undertaking was in fact given by the defendant. On December 7, 1967, the defendants wrote again asking for a further extension, which was granted to March 31, 1968, and noted by the claimant as the final extension.

The question the court had to decide was whether the defendant’s use of the mark fell within s. 5(1) of the Trade Marks Ordinance 1955. In other words, was the mark likely to cause confusion or deception – was there an intention to deceive?

The claimant was required to prove that the mark and their goods had become distinctive in the eyes of the buyer. Claimant’s counsel presented no evidence of deception or confusion, simply relying on the argument of ‘similarity’ in appearance and the likelihood that the public would be deceived. The defense argued that there must be evidence of an intention to deceive but the court, relying on Kelly on Trade Marks (8th ed.), p. 334, found that the absence of an intention to deceive is no defense. As such, the court was left to make a determination without evidence of deception and decided that the defendant’s label was an imitation of that of the claimant.

On the question of passing off, the court had to decide whether the conduct of the defendant in using a similar mark was likely to cause confusion or damage to the claimant’s trade. It was held that the after repeated extensions by the claimant permitting the defendant to use the mark temporarily, the continued use by the defendant of the mark no longer remained innocent.

The court was satisfied that the average purchaser would mistakenly purchase the defendant’s good thinking it was claimant’s, despite the differences of (a) ‘Tropical ’fruit' versus ‘Fruit of the Loom’, (b) different colors and (c) different sizes in the labels:

“The arrangement is so similar that the colour tones and differences in the nature of the fruit became insignificant and the whole representation is, as I have already said, a colourable imitation of the C’s get up or package…” – p. 449, I.

The use of ‘Tropical Fruit’ further demonstrated deception on the part of the defendant. Finally, the court found that the defendant’s mark was a copy of claimant’s and continued use constituted infringement. As such, the injunction was granted prohibiting the defendant from using the mark of the claimant.

Cases referred to:

Spalding v Gomage (A.W.) Ltd., [1914] 2 Ch. 405; 83 L.J. Ch 855; 111 L.T. 829; 58 Sol. Jo. 722.

Jay v. Ladler (1888), 40 Ch. D. 649 L.T. 27; 37 W.R. 505; 5 T.L.R. 57; 6 R.P.C. 136.