Crosfield (Joseph) & Sons' Application (PERFECTION)
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Date | 1909 |
Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
24 cases
-
Okotoks Limted (Formerly Spicerhaart Ltd) and Another v Fine & Country Ltd and Others
...the general public of the present day and of the future from access to the enclosure" (quoting Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy MR in Joseph Crosfield & Son's Application (1909) 26 R.P.C. 837 at 854), the ultimate issue is indeed simply stated. Its answer is, inevitably, longer." 67 This appears t......
-
Fine & Country Ltd and Others v Okotoks Ltd (formerly Spicerhaart Ltd) and Another
...day and of the future from access to the enclosure” (quoting Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy MR in Joseph Crosfield & Son's Application (1909) 26 R.P.C. 837 at 854), the ultimate issue is indeed simply stated. Its answer is, inevitably, 41 32. The starting point as it seems to me is a comparison o......
-
Super Coffeemix Manufacturing Ltd v Unico Trading Pte Ltd and Another and Another Appeal
...But they argue it does not follow that just because a mark is descriptive it cannot be a trade mark: see Crosfield & Sons` Application [1909] 26 RPC 837 at 857 and Thermawear v Vedonis [1982] RPC 44. Or that it cannot become distinctive: see Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199. Part B of the Re......
-
Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. v Sid Shaw Elvisly Yours
...or proposed to be used, the lower its inherent distinctiveness." 58 In Re Joseph Crosfield and associated cases [1910] 1 Ch 130, 145 (1909) 26 RPC 837, 857 Fletcher Moulton LJ said that it was a fallacy to assume any "natural and innate antagonism between distinctive and descriptive as app......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Analyses: The Concept 'Similar Goods' in Trade-mark Law
...to exclude the general public of the present day andof the future from access to the enclosure’ (Joseph Crosfield & Son’sApplication (1909) 26 RPC 837 at 854). If the concept ‘similar goods’ is notapplied strictly, a first result will be that all marks enjoy protection for asubstantially w......