The IPKat’s friend Gadi Oron has just sent him news of various recent Israeli IP decisions, including Buffalo Boots v Lucassi Shoes (Tel Aviv District Court, 11 January 2004). Buffalo Boots sued Lucasso for selling shoes which looked similar to their own and bore a similar “boomerang” logo. The parties’ shoes were however sold under quite different names. No passing off, said the court. Although Lucasso’s shoes were almost identical to the claimants’ in their appearance, the fact that they bore different names prevented the public from being misled. Buffalo Boots however succeeded on the ground of “false attribution” in that Lucasso described its shoes to potential retailers as being “Buffalo Boots”. Damages were awarded for false attribution and trade mark infringement, even though loss no was proved.
The IPKat, who only knows of “false attribution” as a doctrine under British copyright law, is surprised to see it brought into play on facts in which trade mark infringement and passing off looked to be more promising avenues to pursue.
Find out about Buffalo Bill, buffalo steak with Jack Daniel sauce, buffalo hide and Buffalo University
False attribution syndrome; false attribution in literature and in photography
A Grimm view of Buffalo Boots
Footwear for other animals here, here and here
The IPKat, who only knows of “false attribution” as a doctrine under British copyright law, is surprised to see it brought into play on facts in which trade mark infringement and passing off looked to be more promising avenues to pursue.
Find out about Buffalo Bill, buffalo steak with Jack Daniel sauce, buffalo hide and Buffalo University
False attribution syndrome; false attribution in literature and in photography
A Grimm view of Buffalo Boots
Footwear for other animals here, here and here
PUTTING THE BOOT IN
![PUTTING THE BOOT IN]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, February 06, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html