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 / / BARBIE v BARBIE

BARBIE v BARBIE


The Edmonton Sun reports that the owner of Barbies Shop, an outlet specialising in novelties such as S&M gear has won a trade mark case brought against her by Mattel. Mattel had demanded a change of name for the shop, owned by Barbie Anderson-Walley but the New York District Court decided that this was not necessary.

Ms Anderston-Walley pointed to the fact that this was her given name and that her line of goods was not competing with the toymaker.

The IPKat reckons that this sounds like a prima facie tarnishment case. The link between sadomasochism and doll (at least the sort aimed at children) is not a good one. However, it’s always a bit uncomfortable to shop someone using his or her own name.

It’s not clear whether the EU own name defence covers first names but this case maybe shows why it should – Anderston-Wally’s Shop would be a particularly catchy name.
BARBIE v BARBIE BARBIE v BARBIE Reviewed by Anonymous on Thursday, July 21, 2005 Rating: 5

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousThursday, 21 July 2005 at 17:46:00 GMT+1

    sadomasochism? i thought s&m stood for slaughter & may.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousFriday, 22 July 2005 at 14:30:00 GMT+1

    oh no - sure everyone knows it's Slaughter and May :-D

    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.