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

TT030-j

返回

CV 2018-02001

The claimant manufactured and sold a ghee product named “Cow Brand Pure Butterfat Ghee” in Trinidad and Tobago, using its registered mark for butterfat ghee, Trade Mark No. B 10668 ‘COW BRAND & DEVICE’. The claimant gained significant goodwill from the sale and advertisement of its butterfat ghee. However, the registration of the claimant’s trademark stated that the trademark would not give the claimant any right to the exclusive use of the words “Cow Brand”. The second defendant manufactured and sold a ghee product named “Pure Cow Brand Butter Ghee” which was distributed by the first defendant in Trinidad and Tobago.

In September 2017, the claimant became aware that the first defendant had put for sale its own ghee product, which bore the claimant’s trademark, and whose packaging so closely resembled the claimant’s packaging that it could be confused with the claimant’s ghee. The second defendant alleged that the first defendant placed a sticker with the word “Milk” over the word “Brand” on the tin of the defendant’s Ghee. The claimant therefore applied to the High Court for the following:

interim injunctions prohibiting the defendants from infringing the claimant’s trademarks and passing off goods as that of the claimant;

an order for the detention, custody or preservation of the infringing goods in accordance with Rule 17.1(1)(c) of the Civil Proceedings Rules 2016; and

a Norwich Pharmacal Order, by which a party or third party could be compelled to disclose information in the matter.

The court examined whether the claimant was entitled to the interim relief sought. Applying the principle laid down in American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] A.C. 396, Jet Pak Services Ltd. v BWIA International Airport Ltd. (1998) 55 WIR 3 and R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others (No. 2) (1990) 3 WLR 818, the court found that the claimant should be granted the interim relief sought because:

there was a serious issue to be tried in view of the evidence presented by the claimant at that stage, on the basis of which the court found that the claimant had a high likelihood of success in showing that it had significant goodwill, there was a misrepresentation by the defendants leading to a likelihood of confusion between the two ghee products, and that the claimant suffered damage as a result of that misrepresentation, giving rise to an action in passing off;

that damages paid to the claimant could never be viewed as an adequate remedy in the circumstances, as a continuation of the defendants’ actions could cause irreparable damage to the claimant’s goodwill; and

that justice would be better achieved in granting the interim relief as opposed to refusing it.

Further, on examining the cases of Carillon (Caribbean) Limited v First Citizens Bank Limited CV2011-01424, Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274, Mitsui & Co Limited v Nexen Petroleum UK Limited [2005] 3 All ER 511 and RFU Consolidated Information Services Limited [2012] 1 WLR 3333, the court exercised its discretion to grant a Norwich Pharmacal Order in favor of the claimant as there was a wrongdoing of a tortious or contractual nature which involved the defendants, and information held by the defendants may be relevant and necessary for the protection of the claimant’s interest.

The court therefore granted the claimant the interim relief sought.

Cases referred to:

American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] A.C. 396

Jet Pak Services Ltd. v BWIA International Airport Ltd. (1998) 55 WIR 3;

R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd. and Others (No. 2) (1990) 3 WLR 818;

Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133;

Bankers Trust Co v Shapira [1980] 1 WLR 1274;

Mitsui & Co Limited v Nexen Petroleum UK Limited [2005] 3 All ER 511;

RFU Consolidated Information Services Limited [2012] 1 WLR 3333;

Carillon (Caribbean) Limited v First Citizens Bank Limited CV2011-01424

P v T Ltd [1997] 4 All ER 200, [1997] 1 WLR 1309;

Carlton Film Distributors Ltd v VCI Plc [2003] EWHC 616, [2003] FSR 876;

AXA Equity & Law Life Assurance Society plc v National Westminster Bank plc [1998] CLC 1177;

Aoot Kalmneft v Denton Wilde Sapte (a firm) [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep 417

CHC Software Care Ltd v Hopkins and Wood [1993] FSR 241.

Other authority referred to:

Hollander, Documentary Evidence (8th edn, 2003) p 78, footnote 11