The IPKat is pleased to see some more trade mark cases trickling through the courts. One of the new batch is IBM v Web-Sphere Ltd. IBM registered WebSphere as a CTM for computer software and communications services. Meanwhile, the defendant, a provider of services connected with the internet, changed its name from the name under which it had been incorporated to Web-Sphere. IBM got wind of this and requested that the defendant change its name. The defendant refused and distributed leaflets stating that IBM had made threats towards it
and acted in restraint of trade. It also claimed that the name was not lawfully trade marked by IBM. IBM launched infringement and malicious falsehood proceedings.
The identity of very strong similarity of the two signs, together with the identity of the goods on which they were used meant that infringement was found. Web-Sphere’s attempts to rely on the own-name defence failed because the name-change had only taken place after the IBM had launched its WebSphere product. Thus, there was a strong inference that the defendant’s company name had been chosen to take advantage of IBM’s reputation and goodwill. However, the malicious falsehood claim failed. While the statements made by the defendant in its leaflets were untrue and malicious, it wasn’t possible to establish that any damage had been caused to IBM because the defendant’s leaflets only had a very limited circulation and was amateurish compared to the reach and quality of IBM’s advertising.
The IPKat applauds another sensible decision. It would be ludicrous if a defendant could take advantage of the own name defence by changing its company name to suit the trade mark it wants to imitate after finding out that the claimant’s mark has been registered.
Webs here, here and here
Spheres here, here and here
and acted in restraint of trade. It also claimed that the name was not lawfully trade marked by IBM. IBM launched infringement and malicious falsehood proceedings.
The identity of very strong similarity of the two signs, together with the identity of the goods on which they were used meant that infringement was found. Web-Sphere’s attempts to rely on the own-name defence failed because the name-change had only taken place after the IBM had launched its WebSphere product. Thus, there was a strong inference that the defendant’s company name had been chosen to take advantage of IBM’s reputation and goodwill. However, the malicious falsehood claim failed. While the statements made by the defendant in its leaflets were untrue and malicious, it wasn’t possible to establish that any damage had been caused to IBM because the defendant’s leaflets only had a very limited circulation and was amateurish compared to the reach and quality of IBM’s advertising.
The IPKat applauds another sensible decision. It would be ludicrous if a defendant could take advantage of the own name defence by changing its company name to suit the trade mark it wants to imitate after finding out that the claimant’s mark has been registered.
Webs here, here and here
Spheres here, here and here
OWN NAME DEFENCE HAS SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
![OWN NAME DEFENCE HAS SPHERES OF INFLUENCE]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Friday, March 19, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.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