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), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / O2 v HUTCHISON

O2 v HUTCHISON


Mr Justice Lewison has delivered a monster-sized judgment in the O2 v Hutchison comparative advertising case. The conclusion at the end of his 223 paragraph judgment [is this a new record for a trade mark case?] is:
  1. O2's bubble marks are valid. They don't lack distinctiveness;
  2. While there was prima-facie s.10(2) (confusion-based infringement), Hutchison had a defence under the Comparative Advertising Directive;
  3. There was no s.10(3) (dilution-based) infringement, and even if there had been, Hutchison would have been covered by a Comparative Advertising Directive defence.

The IPKat will bring you more when he's had time to read the case. A skim-through shows that all our old favourites are there, including Arsenal v Reed, Johnstone and Philips v Remington.

O2 v HUTCHISON O2 v HUTCHISON Reviewed by Anonymous on Thursday, March 23, 2006 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. Peter GrovesThursday, 23 March 2006 at 14:07:00 GMT

    Not a record: Healing Herbs v Bach Flower Remedies CH 1997-H-NO.1231 was 305 paragraphs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JeremyThursday, 23 March 2006 at 22:46:00 GMT

    Healing Herbs v Bach Flower Remedies may have more paragraphs, but it's only 23,902 words. O2 v Hutchison is 32,950. HOWEVER ... the longest is Mr Justice Laddie's epic judgment in Glaxo and others v Dowelhurst and others, which weighs in at a massive 39,501 words.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMonday, 5 May 2008 at 12:15:00 GMT+1

    Do you have any news for this case?

    Cheers

    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.