Does UK Trademark regulation provide sufficient safety for Vogue Manufacturers?
Introduction
Alligator and Crocodile[1]. A crocodile which faces left and a crocodile which faces proper[2]. “Felony” and “Felony Injury”[3]. Two bounding felines[4]. “Amaze Assortment” and “Ama Zing”[5]. “The Gunners” and “Arsenal Gunners”[6]. By such finely nuanced phrases and ideas the battleground of Commerce Marks within the vogue is outlined. The necessity to defend merchandise stems from the commercial revolution[7] and has been swept alongside by the present of recent capitalism which has seen the sphere of Commerce Mark registration encroach into virtually each subject of human protecting sounds, smells and even three-d photos.
Vogue manufacturers are sometimes pitched on the centre of this ongoing wrestle between competing firms, multinationals and avenue distributors alike, and people: the worldwide counterfeiting vogue was reported in 2005 to be value ˆ500 billion and might justifiably be stated to be undermining the safety which UK Trademark regulation provides by flooding markets with low cost counterfeit items that are in a single sense undetectable by the regulation[8]. Are vogue manufacturers proper to assume that Commerce Mark regulation can’t sustain and take the regulation into their very own palms[9]The counterfeiting is, nonetheless, the intense finish of Commerce Mark violation: what of two retailers who genuinely imagine they’re promoting a novel and distinct product, one in all which is already registeredThe distinction right here is typically extraordinarily delicate and this dissertation will articulate these nuanced positions. The regulatory regime within the UK does present a measure of safety to manufacturers, however it’s clever to recount Lewison J’s observations:
“English regulation doesn’t, nonetheless, defend manufacturers as such. It can defend good will (through the regulation of passing off); commerce marks (through commerce mark infringement); using explicit phrases, sounds and pictures (through the regulation of copyright); and configurations of articles (through the regulation of unregistered design proper) and so forth. However to the extent that a model is bigger than the sum of the elements that English regulation will defend; it’s defenceless in opposition to the chilliness wind of competitors”[10].
Inside the context of Lewison J’s definition there are two distinct areas of safety within the trendy regulation of Commerce Mark within the UK: the widespread regulation motion of passing-off in tort and the registration regime underneath the Commerce Mark Act 1994 which each allow the safety and enforcement of rights. This Mission will deal with the applying of each of those elements of Commerce Mark regulation within the UK particularly to the style . This side of commerce mark regulation is a uncared for one and a subject which deserves nearer scrutiny provided that the style contributes ?21 billion to the British economic system[11]in addition to moral, inventive and market justifications for cover[12]. One conventional view of analysis, adopted by the Harvard College and articulated by Pickering[13] on this subject is that the safety afforded to manufacturers successfully creates a monopoly to the detriment of the shopper[14]. A current landmark case from 2010, nonetheless, which marked the top of a Four-year authorized battle, has resulted in victory for a small clothes retailer in opposition to a world firm, La Chemise Lacoste[15]. This resolution may be immediately contrasted with the 40-year authorized siege which lastly got here to an finish in 2008 between La Chemise Lacoste v Crocodile Worldwide Pte Ltd[16] and up to date Lacoste trademark rulings in China.
This undertaking will argue, in gentle of each current developments in China and Australia concerning Lacoste and the Chemise Lacoste case itself within the UK, that the UK Commerce Mark regime does present ample safety each at widespread regulation and at a statutory degree from the smallest avenue distributors to the most important Multi Nationwide Firms and that anti-competitive arguments in opposition to commerce marks have gotten much less related: if David can beat Goliath within the landmark vogue regulation case of the 21st century thus far, then absolutely the regulation is fulfilling its roleThe function of passing-off nonetheless, is clearly diminishing because the statutory framework grows and it’s doable that when there aren’t any holes left within the Commerce Mark Act 1994 this tort won’t have a job[17].
This undertaking will use statute, textbooks, journals and newspaper articles to deal with the speculation that UK trademark regulation is ample sufficient for the safety of inside disputes however insufficient to take care of the blight of refined worldwide counterfeit operations. The breadth of the scholarship and sources used might be complemented by current case regulation to convey the analysis into 2011. Such a analysis undertaking can later kind the idea for additional analysis and research within the subject and may be drawn upon sooner or later for additional improvement and research.
Literature Overview
The Improvement of Commerce Mark Regulation
Cornish and Lleweleyn[18] hint the historical past of Commerce Mark regulation and notice that in 1875 a marketing campaign for a registration system succeeded within the historic Commerce Marks Registration Act 1875. Pickering[19], Bently and Sherman[20], Torremans[21] and Bainbridge[22] all notice the event with Pickering noting that: “some great benefits of safety by this methodology are clear: it’s now not essential to undergo the pricey and laborious strategy of proving that a mark has an acquired fame related with the plaintiff”[23]. The 1905 Act noticed sure developments upon the appearance of registration in 1875, notably making non-use for the earlier 5 years a floor for the mark being faraway from the Register, one thing which is preserved underneath the Commerce Mark Act 1994 s.46(1)(b).
Cornish and Llewelyn additionally observe that the inter-war years noticed a rise within the industrial significance of commerce marks by “the unfold of manufacturing, the expansion of a preferred press with is immense prospects for promoting, the rise of transnational enterprise in profitable merchandise and the resultant have to defend high-priced markets in opposition to parallel imports from elsewhere”[24]. There have been Acts in 1883, 1905 and 1919 however the important thing Act, foreshadowing the present regime, was the 1938 Commerce Marks Act. This Act, as Bently and Sherman notice, allowed the task of marks separate from the nice will of the enterprise. The factors for registration underneath this Act has been extensively criticised as being too advanced and unduly restrictive[25], affected by obscure drafting[26] and unclear over the implications for non-registration[27]. A number of amending acts had been subsequently handed within the UK however these solely added to the difficulties within the interpretation of the 1938 Act. The 1984 Commerce Marks (Modification) Act which tried to include service marks into the regime was “clumsy” in keeping with Bainbridge and Torremans[28].
Exterior pressures overtook the 1938 Act and its amendments and shortly the case for a regime extra in keeping with European nations was irresistible. Certainly, the EC directive on the harmonisation of commerce mark regulation has been hailed as the one largest driving power behind the 1994 Act[29]. Frank Schechter, the main historian of commerce marks, can also be seen as a precursor to the 1994 Act. He argued, radically on the time, for a single rational foundation for commerce marks and, such marks being a species of property which essentially protects each related and dissimilar marks, the one cause for cover is preservation of the distinctive nature of the mark[30].
The fashionable regime is enshrined within the 1994 Commerce Mark Act which, within the phrases of Bainbridge: “introduced a welcome breath of recent air to commerce mark regulation…Gone is the obscure drafting of the 1938 Act.”[31] Below the 1994 Act the numerous adjustments had been that the factors for registration had been relaxed and broadened, the scope of safety for registration was enlarged and the earlier formalities eradicated. Such formalities had been for thus lengthy a barrier to transnational companies who, within the phrases of Cornish and Llewelyn, “need easy, sure and low cost registration with out having to use nation by nation utilizing methods encrusted with particular person idiosyncracies”[32].
Commerce Mark for vogue manufacturers: an exposition of related case regulation (1) passing off instances
The earliest case which includes each vogue and Commerce Mark regulation is Southern v How[33], a case from 1618 which concerned two garments makers, one placing the others mark on his inferior product and thus giving rise to a standard regulation motion in deceit. The fashionable widespread regulation tort of passing off is kind of totally different, being comprised of three parts as advocated by modern opinion: “that confusion being generated by the exercise of a dealer in inflicting his items or companies and/or their presentation to grow to be confused with these of the claimant, and that safety being afforded by the grant of a proper of motion to the dealer whose financial pursuits and buying and selling goodwill are harmed by the confusion”[34].
The primary important vogue case underneath passing off is available in 1988 in Unidoor v Marks & Spencer [35] the place M&S had been advertising and marketing t-shirts with the slogan “COAST TO COAST” beneath the phrases “Marine woman”. The plaintiffs on this motion had an element B trademark for “Coast to Coast” and complained of the defendants’ use whereas the defendants challenged the validity of the plaintiff’s commerce mark. The Excessive Court docket of Justiciary, Chancery division, held that each underneath statute and the widespread regulation tort of passing off there was no case because the plaintiff had not acquainted the buying public with the truth that “Coast to Coast” was a trademark of theirs. In AMAZE Assortment Commerce Mark[36] the excellence was a advantageous one between “Amaze Assortment” and “Ama Zing”, the plaintiffs proudly owning the latter and the defenders proudly owning the previous. The plaintiffs utilized for a declaration of invalidity underneath s.5(Four)(a) utilizing passing off as a former proper to depend upon. The court docket refused the applying, holding that A had failed to ascertain he had owned the related goodwill within the firm earlier than the related date and in any occasion held that the phrases wouldn’t create any confusion within the minds of the general public.
In Felony Clothes Ltd’s Commerce Mark Software[37] the phrases concerned had been “Felony” and “Felony Injury”. This case involved an enchantment by a clothes producer (C) who sought to problem the choice of the Commerce Marks Registry to uphold a call supporting M which prevented from registering a commerce mark. M had opposed C’s mark as confusingly related and for equivalent items, and had claimed that due to the goodwill and fame loved by M, use of C’s mark would quantity to the tort of passing off. The enchantment in relation to s.5(Four)(a) failed as there was an acute danger of confusion in keeping with the Chancery Division.
The ultimate case I’ve chosen for evaluation is a really current one: Zaba’ish v Zebaish Clothes Ltd[38] the place an organization utilizing the identical identify as one other firm to promote the identical items with a decrease high quality was responsible of passing off as a result of the misleading similarity of their names was prone to injury the goodwill of the sooner firm. Choose Fysh QC put the take a look at within the following manner:
“A claimant alleging passing off had first to show a fame or goodwill in affiliation with a selected phrase or mark related to its enterprise; secondly, a misrepresentation of some type in the middle of commerce on the a part of the defendant had then to be proven; lastly, that misrepresentation needed to be calculated or, not less than, prone to injury the claimant’s goodwill or enterprise.”
Case Regulation referring to Commerce Mark safety within the vogue underneath TA 1994: s.5 relative grounds of refusal
As famous above the current case of Chemise Lacoste and Baker Road Clothes
Ltd[39] has heralded a big victory for a really small clothes producer in opposition to the large Lacoste underneath the Commerce Mark Act 1994. A predecessor to the Lacoste authorized wrangles underneath s.5 of the 1994 Act (the relative grounds of refusal) is firstly the ZIPPO Commerce Mark[40] case the place P registered the trademark at school 18 in respect of things of vogue. A had three prior registrations for an equivalent named mark for lighters. A thus utilized for a declaration of invalidity on the grounds that P’s mark was equivalent to theirs and this might result in confusion underneath s.5(2). A additionally tried revocation on the grounds of non-use underneath s.46 for five years. The Commerce Marks Registry held that the problem of invalidity failed underneath s.5(2) as A had not challenged the registration of the commerce mark in 1986 and secondly the s.46 revocation did not an extent because the trunks, umbrellas and parasols had not been in use whereas the baggage, instances and wallets had been regardless of the very minimal quantity of use.
The LOADED Commerce Mark case[41] additionally got here underneath s.5 in respect of the proprietor of a magazine known as LOADED who appealed in opposition to the dismissal of their utility opposing the registration of an equivalent trademark in respect of clothes. IPC contended that the applying must be refused inter alia underneath s.5(three): injury to their fame. The enchantment was allowed as LOADED had constructed up important fame within the males’s journal sector and dilution of the market as had occurred might compromise promoting revenues.
In Baker Road Clothes Ltd v La Chemise Lacoste (SA) Commerce Mark Registry 9/12/2009, Lacoste tried to revocate the registration of Baker Road’s alligator mark underneath s.46(1)(b) and succeeded partly. The court docket noticed that the minimal use of sure merchandise certified them to flee revocation however others didn’t: “Subsequently, the proof collectively established that in 2005 B was making preparations to safe clients and create a market share for its clothes and that that must be thought-about to fulfill the necessities for there to be real use.”
This case proved solely a stepping stone to the landmark resolution in November 2010[42] the place Baker Road lastly received over their multinational rival. Sections 5(2)(b), 5(three), 5(Four)(a) and 56 of the Commerce Marks Act 1994 had been invoked by Lacoste to oppose the purposes to register ALLIGATOR as a Commerce Mark.
The Registry considerably identified at paragraph 50 that:
“The Applicant’s phrase mark ALLIGATOR would naturally be perceived
and remembered as an allusion to alligators usually. Pairing and matching it with the actual photos of the Respondent’s marks, in circumstances the place they’d come to be firmly related and recognized with the identify LACOSTE, appears to me like a course of of study and approximation that the related common client wouldn’t naturally be involved to interact in.”
The style : counterfeiting and attitudes to Commerce Mark regulation
Okonkwo has noticed that main manufacturers reminiscent of Burberry and Louis Vuitton contemplate the struggle to guard their Commerce Marks in opposition to counterfeiters a shedding battle and are as a substitute specializing in stopping provide in raiding shops and factories the world over[43]. Chaudry in the meantime, echoes Okonkwo’s findings and develops the concept of three central distribution areas which evade regulation and customs: “established retail outlets, casual channels reminiscent of “flea markets”, sidewalk distributors and clandestine outlets and naturally the web”[44]. These casual places are very a lot evident within the again streets of the UK and their seepage into the pores of UK commerce is obvious[45] as is their dilution of the market[46]
In fact the market in counterfeit items wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a requirement for it[47] and Okonkwo particularly identifies research of shoppers within the UK which revealed that a few third of the general public would knowingly purchase counterfeit items for a wide range of causes. Phillips[48] describes the exceptionally powerful stance of the French who put counterfeiters in jail for three years with a doable advantageous of 300,000 euros.
Rationalization of the authorized place
S.1(1) of the Commerce Marks Act 1994 gives that a commerce mark is any signal which is able to being represented graphically. This illustration distinguishes the products or companies from different undertakings. The essential level right here is that after registered, the commerce mark represents a property proper which is vested within the proprietor. Given this two tier degree of safety the authorized place might be analyzed in relation to pre and publish – registration.
When the mark has been registered or is within the strategy of being registered:
For a commerce mark to be registered, it should not fall into the grounds of refusal of registration. Below s.three of the 1994 Act, they’re firstly that the Commerce Mark will need to have a descriptive character, it should not be descriptive of the underlying items or companies which it represents and it should not signify a customary articulation of the commerce. Registration may even be refused whether it is opposite to public coverage or accepted ranges of morality (eg being misleading in nature).
S.5 of the 1994 Act gives extra relative grounds of refusal along with s.three:
5. – (1) A commerce mark shall not be registered whether it is equivalent with an earlier commerce mark and the products or companies for which the commerce mark is utilized for are equivalent with the products or companies for which the sooner commerce mark is protected.
So if a commerce mark is equivalent to an earlier commerce mark and the commerce mark utilized for is for items both equivalent to or much like these for which the sooner commerce mark has been registered and there exists a chance of public confusion then registration may be refused. The third half underneath s.5(three) considerations the unfair benefit or detriment brought about to the “distinctive character” of the sooner commerce mark and eventually s.5(Four) incorporates the regulation of passing-off by offering that a commerce mark might be refused registration if within the UK there’s any rule of regulation which prevents its use. When the mark has already been registered then s.10 of the 1994 Act is relevant:
“10. – (1) An individual infringes a registered commerce mark if he makes use of in the middle of commerce an indication which is equivalent with the commerce mark in relation to items or companies that are equivalent with these for which it’s registered.
This a part of the Act is comparable in its wording to s.5 however not equivalent in that the mark itself can both be related or equivalent to the sooner commerce mark in query however clearly, as Torremans factors out, it’s written “in accord with part 5 of the Act”[49]. Torremans distils this part into a 3 level take a look at: firstly is the signal used in the middle of tradeSecondly are the products and companies for which the signal is used much like these in relation to which the commerce mark has been registeredAnd lastly is there a chance of confusion due to that similarityIt must be famous lastly that underneath s.42(1) a Commerce Mark initially lasts for 10 years however by way of the grounds of s.46(1) if there’s, for instance, non-use for 5 years there’s a floor for revocation.
When the mark has not been registered
Then the Commerce Mark Act 1994 can’t apply and the widespread regulation should fill in the place the statute can’t. Completely different formulations of this motion have developed over time however it’s the rule laid down by Lord Diplock which in keeping with Bainbridge, is the one that’s closest to the current authorized setting[50]. Lord Diplock, from the case of Spalding & Bros v A W Gamage Ltd[51] , laid down a traditional formulae which has been additional distilled right into a three-part take a look at by Nourse LJ[52]:
The goodwill of the claimant
The misrepresentation made by the defendant and
Consequential injury
The central component of the widespread regulation motion of passing-off is the goodwill component: with out this there may be no motion. Clearly, as Bainbridge factors out, “if a dealer has solely simply began in enterprise or has solely not too long ago began utilizing an unregistered mark or ‘rise up’ he could also be unable to reach a passing off motion[53]. The central query right here is whether or not a fame has been acquired, whatever the shortness of time. Relating to misrepresentation this needn’t be malicious as harmless misrepresentation could also be sufficient. Lastly the injury component pertains to confusion within the public.
Cures at widespread regulation and underneath the 1994 Act
At widespread regulation the cures out there are:
injunctions (together with interim) and/or
Damages and/or
Account of income
Declarator or order to destroy the offending marks[54]
Below the 1994 Act the cures are contained underneath s.14:
Damages
Interdict
Rely and reckoning
Order underneath s.15 to to erase, take away or obliterate the offending signal
Order underneath s.16 for the offending materials to be despatched to the proper commerce mark proprietor[55]
Evaluation and/or analysis of the actual situation. [500]
UK commerce mark regulation provides not more than ample safety for vogue manufacturers. As has been mentioned if the commerce mark of the style model is registered then the total suite of rights and cures is offered underneath the Commerce Mark Act 1994. There may be no higher demonstration of the highly effective safety which UK firms can declare than within the very current La Chemise Lacoste[56] which demonstrates aptly the facility of the UK system in overturning the Harvard College of thought which criticizes safety of commerce mark as a type of monopoly. Though the precise penalties of this case are unclear, they are often contrasted with different Lacoste instances in each China and Australia the place Lacoste was profitable in stopping Crocodile Worldwide from registering additional commerce marks into the market. Defending smaller retailers and bigger firms alike can solely improve the credibility of the UK system when two manufacturers have an debatable case.
Case regulation in vogue manufacturers and commerce mark has been performed in each the widespread regulation of passing-off and the statutory regime. It’s clear that vogue manufacturers have been utilizing defending their rights at each the pre and post- registration levels of a commerce mark. The place the offenders are blatant counterfeiters nonetheless, it’s much less clear how the worldwide plague of counterfeit items can realistically be stopped. The seeping into markets of hordes of products from China has diluted our economic system and broken the fame of commerce mark regulation: such gross sales on avenue corners, “flea markets” and clandestine outlets undermine the regulatory regime and have witnessed main manufacturers reminiscent of Burberry successfully take the regulation into their very own palms. If they’re turning their backs on commerce mark regulation then there must be a critical re-examination of the strictness of anti-counterfeit legal guidelines and maybe a extra cellular kind of justice which may transfer with the crafty prison minds which engineer the system.
Internally the commerce mark system is working within the UK if the commerce mark is registered. The extent of ignorance about commerce marks is excessive although and it’s this state of limbo, together with the streams of counterfeit items which penetrate the UK which render the protections of commerce mark regulation as insufficient. A lack of understanding of the total suite of protections underneath the Commerce Marks Act 1994 is an indictment of the system The vary of cures may be very related between the widespread regulation and statutory regimes, nonetheless, and may be stated to supply measure of safety as soon as it’s confirmed that a commerce mark infringement has occurred.
An unregistered commerce mark generally is a poisonous asset because the arduous work and labor which has gone into its manufacturing may be undermined simply if for instance confusion to most of the people can’t be evidenced.
Vital reflection
Trying again on this dissertation I’d have appreciated to have performed extra analysis into main case regulation. The query itself is kind of particular and the case regulation on mental property as a complete is undoubtedly huge and suffers from over-analysis. If I had extra time I’d have appreciated to have obtained case regulation on the total vary of the 1994 Act. On this research I’ve solely been capable of finding case regulation referring to vogue manufacturers in respect of the relative grounds of refusal underneath s.5 and in addition the revocation regime after 5 years of non-use.
Moreover, the opinions of these within the vogue world would have been very revealing. Regardless of all of the hypothesis of case regulation it’s tough to understand how those that manufacture and market the manufacturers view their authorized rights: do they make use of commerce mark lawDo they really feel it protects themDo they really feel that they need to take the regulation into their very own handsSome quantitative analysis on this route would illuminate the research and will inform a future piece of labor.
Conclusion
In conclusion the safety of the Commerce Mark legal guidelines, each at widespread regulation and the statutory regime underneath the 1994 Act, is ample for firms and people based mostly in Britain however insufficient when confronted with the flood of counterfeit items from nations reminiscent of China. Clearly a registered commerce mark which has constructed up a fame can anticipate glorious safety however to not the extent of a monopoly as evidenced by the current La Chemise Lacoste case. Ignorance of the regulation of commerce mark, the attitudes of name producers in taking the regulation into their very own palms and looking properties and individuals and the fading relevance of the widespread regulation motion of passing-off all rein within the protecting degree of the Commerce Mark Legal guidelines. Each pre and post- registration vogue manufacturers have loved the safety of the regulation however on this age of globalization of commerce the risks of low cost items purchased by an typically complicit public is ever current.
My Suggestions:
(1) Training: Most of the people and certainly firms must be made conscious of the advantages of commerce mark regulation and the doable results of not having commerce mark regulation (for instance Pakistan prescribed drugs and lowest denominator). The vary of issues which may entice a commerce mark, reminiscent of sounds, smells and even 3D photos are merely exterior the information of these exterior the specialised IP career.
(2) Counterfeit penalties: The French have a extremely refined sense of tradition and in addition a extremely developed set of punitive measures: three years in jail and 300,000 euro fines act as highly effective deterrents.
(three) Improvement of the widespread regulation motion of passing-off right into a extra embracing kind which includes prison offences reminiscent of underneath the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 s.1.
(Four) Additional analysis into this space alongside the strains of America – who’ve specialist books on this space not like the UK the place the topic is just one which has not been thought-about in any element.
References
[1] Baker Road Clothes Ltd v La Chemise Lacoste (SA) Commerce Mark Registry 9/12/2009
[2] La Chemise Lacoste v Crocodile Worldwide Pte Ltd [2008] ATMO 90
[3] Felony Clothes Ltd’s Commerce Mark Software (No. 229214) [2005] EWCH 1303 (ch)
[4] Sabel BV v Puma AG (C-251/95)
[5] AMAZE Assortment Commerce Mark [1999] R.P.C. 725
[6] Arsenal v Reed (no.1) [2001] 2 C.M.L.R 23
[7] Cornish W & Llewellyn D (2007) Mental Property: Patents, Copyright, Commerce Marks and Allied Rights p.606
[8] Okonkwo, Uche (2007) Luxurious Vogue Branding: Traits, Techniques, Strategies p. 173
[9] Ibid p. 174
[10] O2 V Hutchison [2006] E.T.M.R. 677 at para 7
[11] http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/15/british-fashion-industry-report-business
[12] Bently & Sherman (2004) Mental Property Regulation p.699 – 702
[13] Pickering, C.D.G (1998) Commerce Marks in Principle and Observe p.74
[14] Yelnik, Sasha ‘From the standpoint of business worth of commerce marks, do present legal guidelines sufficiently defend manufacturers from infringement?” European IP regulation (repair)
[15] Within the matter of purposes 2338089 and 2354259 within the identify of Baker Road Clothes Restricted and oppositions 94205 and 94206 by La Chemise Lacoste SA (BL Zero-333-10, September 16 2010)
[16] [2008] ATMO 90
[17] See Hollyoak & Torremans (2005) Mental Property Regulation 4th ed
[18] Cornish W & Llewellyn D Mental Property: Patents, Copyright, Commerce Marks and Allied Rights p.606
[19] Pickering, C.D.G (1998) Commerce Marks in Principle and Observe p.three
[20] Bently & Sherman (2004) Mental Property Regulation p.699 – 702
[21] Hollyoak & Torremans (2005) Mental Property Regulation p.364
[22] Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.534
[23] ibid p.three
[24] Ibid p.610
[25] Bently & Sherman (2004) Mental Property Regulation p.696
[26] Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.549
[27] Cornish W & Llewellyn D Mental Property: Patents, Copyright, Commerce Marks and Allied Rights p.606
[28] Hollyoak & Torremans (2005) Mental Property Regulation p.364
[29] See Pickering, C.D.G (1998) Commerce Marks in Principle and Observe p.5, Cornish W & Llewellyn D Mental Property: Patents, Copyright, Commerce Marks and Allied Rights p.611, Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.549, Phillips & Firth (2001) Introduction to Mental Property Regulation 308
[30] F.Schechter ‘The Rational Foundation of Commerce Market Safety’ (1927) 49 Harvard LR 813, 831
[31] Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.549
[32] Cornish W & Llewellyn D Mental Property: Patents, Copyright, Commerce Marks and Allied Rights p.611
[33] (1618) Popham 144
[34] Hollyoak & Torremans (2005) Mental Property Regulation p.448 And in addition see Pickering, C.D.G (1998) Commerce Marks in Principle and Observe p.5, Cornish W & Llewellyn D Mental Property: Patents, Copyright, Commerce Marks and Allied Rights para 17-01, Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.640, Phillips & Firth (2001) Introduction to Mental Property Regulation 308
[35] [1988] R.P.C. 275
[36] [1999] R.P.C. 725
[37] (No. 229214) [2005] EWCH 1303 (ch)
[38] Patents County Court docket [no reference]
[39] Baker Road Clothes Ltd v La Chemise Lacoste (SA) Commerce Mark Registry 9/12/2009
[40] [1999] R.P.C. 173
[41] (2001) 24(2) I.P.D 24012
[42] Within the matter of purposes 2338089 and 2354259 within the identify of Baker Road Clothes Restricted and oppositions 94205 and 94206 by La Chemise Lacoste SA (BL Zero-333-10, September 16 2010)
[43] Okonkwo, Uche (2007) Luxurious Vogue Branding: Traits, Techniques, Strategies p. 173
[44] Chaudry & Zimmerman The Economics of Counterfeit Commerce p.22
[45] http://information.bbc.co.uk/1/hello/england/london/8576880.stm
[46] Hines & Bruce Vogue Advertising: Modern Points p.148
[47] Okonkwo, Uche (2007) Luxurious Vogue Branding: Traits, Techniques, Strategies p. 173
[48] Philips, Tim (2007) Knockoff: The Lethal Commerce in Counterfeit Items p. 9
[49] Hollyoak & Torremans (2005) Mental Property Regulation p.398
[50] Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.549
[51] (1915) 84 LJ Ch 449
[52] Consorzio de Prosciutto di Parma v Marks and Spencer plc [1991] R.P.C. 351
[53] Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.644
[54] Bainbridge, David (2002) Mental Property p.679
[55] Ibid p.620
[56] Within the matter of purposes 2338089 and 2354259 within the identify of Baker Road Clothes Restricted and oppositions 94205 and 94206 by La Chemise Lacoste SA (BL Zero-333-10, September 16 2010)
