Mothercare U.K. Ltd v Penguin Books Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1988 |
| Year | 1988 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
-
- 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
20 cases
- Sinma Medical Products (M) Sdn Bhd v Yomeishu Seizo Company Ltd
-
R v Johnstone (Robert Alexander)
...of trade origin of goods or services does not encroach upon the proprietor's monopoly rights. Dillon LJ observed trenchantly in Mothercare UK Ltd v Penguin Books [1988] RPC 113, 118: 'it stands to reason that a Trade Marks Act would only be concerned to restrict the use of a mark as a trad......
-
Walt Disney Productions v. Fantasyland Hotel Inc., (1994) 154 A.R. 161 (QB)
...(U.K.) Ltd. v. Burtons Bisquits Ltd., [1992] F.S.R. 14 (C.D.), refd to. [para. 195]. Mothercare U.K. Ltd. v. Penquin Books Ltd., [1988] R.P.C. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 197]. Holiday Inns Inc. v. Holiday Out in ......
-
Rxworks Ltd v Hunter (Dr Paul)
...and the desirability of building it into any system of trade mark protection may be seen by comparing Dillon LJ's words in Mothercare UK Ltd v. Penguin Books Ltd [1988] RPC 113 at 118–119: “…there is …no reason why other people should not be free to use the words in a descriptive sense, an......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
Intellectual Property Law
...denote the origin of goods or services is an essential prerequisite to infringement. As Dillon LJ in Mothercare UK Ltd v Penguin Books Ltd[1988] RPC 113 at 118 trenchantly observed: Indeed it stands to reason that a Trade Marks Act would only be concerned to restrict the use of a mark as a ......
-
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE 1994 UK TRADEMARKS ACT IN THE SINGAPORE CONTEXT
...Ltd v Frazer [1966] RPC 7, News Group Newspapers v Mirror Group Newspapers (1986) Ltd[1989] FSR 126. 20 Mothercare UK Ltd v Penguin Books [1988] RPC 113, Mars GB Ltd v Cadbury Ltd[1987] RPC 387. 21 See, e.g., Firth, supra n 1, chapter 1. 22 Per Jacob J in British Sugar v James Robertson & S......
-
NET EFFECT II: MARKED_CONCERN.COM
...of Appeal case of Philips Electronics v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (unreported). 49 [1996] FSR 205. 50 [1998] FSR 265 at p. 272. 51 [1988] RPC 113 at p. 118. See, again, Powell’s Trade Mark, n. 3. 52 189/104/EEC, 21 December 1988. 53 It is submitted that a domain name is capable of bei......
-
THE MEANING OF ‘INVENTED’ IN TRADE MARK LAW
...counsel for the plaintiff-registered proprietor, that there is such a requirement). 4 For example, Mothercare UK Ltd v Penguin Books Ltd[1988] RPC 113 (whether the trade mark “Mothercare” was infringed by the defendants in using the words “Mother Care/Other Care” as the title of a book abou......