Ther IPKat has already given space to the scrap between legendary track star David Bedford and The Number Company over the use of two unlicensed Bedford lookalikes in The Number Company's adverts for its 118 118 telephone directory enquiries (DQ) service (see previous blog of 18 January). Now the Register reports that Bedford has got the better of his foes by turning out to endorse the DQ service of The Number Company's rival BT. Bedford's passing off action against The Number Company is expected to be heard this year.
The IPKat thinks Bedford's stunt in endorsing BT's DQ service was pretty cool, but pauses to ponder. The Number Company might argue that it was only because they so extensively used Bedford's image, thus earning both itself and Bedford a good deal of publicity, that gave a faded name from the past a fresh lease of commercial life. If this can be shown, what would be the true measure compensatory passing off damages that Bedford could claim?
Wrong numbers here, here and here
The IPKat thinks Bedford's stunt in endorsing BT's DQ service was pretty cool, but pauses to ponder. The Number Company might argue that it was only because they so extensively used Bedford's image, thus earning both itself and Bedford a good deal of publicity, that gave a faded name from the past a fresh lease of commercial life. If this can be shown, what would be the true measure compensatory passing off damages that Bedford could claim?
Wrong numbers here, here and here
BEDFORD BACKS BT IN THE RACE AGAINST 118 118
![BEDFORD BACKS BT IN THE RACE AGAINST 118 118]()
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Wednesday, March 10, 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