Anna Carboni has informed the IPKat of a forthcoming important change to the Trade Marks Act 1994. Paragraph 7 of Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 946, The Trade Marks (Proof of Use, etc.) Regulations 2004 amends ss5(3) and 10(3), removing the need for the parties goods and services to be dissimilar.
S.10(3) will now read
A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade in relation to goods or services a sign which is identical with or similar to the trade mark
where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
S.5(3) will now read
A trade mark which is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom (or, in the case of a Community trade mark, in the European Community) and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
The IPKat notes that this will bring the UK law into line with the effect of the ECJ’s decisions in Davidoff v Gofkid and Adidas v Fitnessworld , which decided that Articles 5(2) and 4(4)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive (the EU’s equivalent of dilution legislation) apply to identical and similar goods type situations and not just to dissimilar goods situations. However, he isn’t aware of any plans to change the Directive.
Dilution here, here and here
S.10(3) will now read
A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade in relation to goods or services a sign which is identical with or similar to the trade mark
where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.
S.5(3) will now read
A trade mark which is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom (or, in the case of a Community trade mark, in the European Community) and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.
The IPKat notes that this will bring the UK law into line with the effect of the ECJ’s decisions in Davidoff v Gofkid and Adidas v Fitnessworld , which decided that Articles 5(2) and 4(4)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive (the EU’s equivalent of dilution legislation) apply to identical and similar goods type situations and not just to dissimilar goods situations. However, he isn’t aware of any plans to change the Directive.
Dilution here, here and here
AMENDMENTS TO TRADE MARKS ACT
![AMENDMENTS TO TRADE MARKS ACT]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Thursday, April 08, 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