Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / Jeremy Phillips / KILLER HEADLINE ATTACKS TRADE MARK

KILLER HEADLINE ATTACKS TRADE MARK

-

Normally the very epitome of correctness in these matters, The Register slipped up badly with its headline "Killer hoover attacks Scotsman" , the machine in question being not a HOOVER but a DYSON.



A Google Image search for "killer + dyson" identified the above illustration

The IPKat wonders whether this unfortunate incident would fall within the definition of trade mark infringement under Article 5 of Council Directive 89/104.
KILLER HEADLINE ATTACKS TRADE MARK KILLER HEADLINE ATTACKS TRADE MARK Reviewed by Jeremy on Saturday, December 25, 2004 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Peter GrovesThursday, 30 December 2004 at 13:18:00 GMT

    Don't you mean it was a DYSON vacuum cleaner, not a HOOVER vacuum cleaner?

    Asn for whether the use would fall within Article 5, it sometimes seems to me that almost everything does these days.

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.