Log in

No account? Create an account
Things I thought this lunchtime... ... Tesco cheap imitation red… - Sally's Journal
June 24th, 2008
05:12 pm


Previous Entry Share Next Entry

(29 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:June 25th, 2008 02:42 pm (UTC)
Well, yes I was, and that makes sense, but I understood, from no evidence, that the purpose of trademark law was still to protect the mark for the purposes of identifying a product, and granted more specific rights for that purpose? And so not confusing confusion doesn't automatically make it ok, but using it at all doesn't automatically make it not ok??

I'm sure you and geekette are right, although still not convinced it's as obvious as you make it sound.

Airing an advert where you claim your competitor sucks is ok iirc (if you can back it up). Airing an advert where you claim you're similar to your competitor is obviously further towards the line, and using a trademark which incorporates their trademark even more so.
Date:June 25th, 2008 04:18 pm (UTC)
Here is where to find the answer: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm/t-decisionmaking/t-law.htm
[User Picture]
Date:June 26th, 2008 05:09 pm (UTC)
Thank you. Yeah, I found the link when I was searching before, and now had a serious go at wading through the manuals. And I'm convinced how complicated it is. There were many helpful examples, but I couldn't find any that bore directly on this, even if just to say hadn't come up in court. (I infer you mean, "if the answer is anywhere, the answer is there, so looking is better than talking about it on livejournal", rather than "you're pretty sure the answer is there". If the latter, I'll read more exhaustively, unless you have any more precise directions.)
Powered by LiveJournal.com