CHANNEL 4 WINS DESCRIPTIVE NAME PASSING OFF CASE

The IPKat is grateful to Tom Cowling of Swan Turton for news of the victory of his firm’s client, Channel 4 in A & E Televisions Networks v Channel 4 Television Corp. Judgment was handed down by His Honour Judge Fysh QC SC today.

The passing off claim centered around the term INTERVENTION. A&E Television used the term as the title of one of its programmes, broadcast in the US, concerning a psychotherapeutic technique known as ‘intervention’ where people suffering from addictions or compulsive behaviour disorders are treated by a professional ‘interventionist’ who arranges a surprise confrontation between the patient and his or her family and/or friends.

Channel 4 broadcast a programme in the UK on the same technique entitled ‘Intervention: We’re Coming to Get You’

The judge found that there was no passing off. Although there was some confusion among TV executives responsible for licensing programmes, this was the risk ran by any trader that chooses a descriptive name. Moreover, in the close-knit world of TV production, such confusion could easily be dispelled.


Said the judge:
"The law of passing off will not countenance the unfair monopolisation of descriptive words or terms".
The IPKat is always in two minds about cases like this. On the one hand, he doesn’t like to see consumers confused. On the other, he doesn’t like to see competition harmed by over-strict IP rules. Luckily the issue doesn’t arise so often as its so hard to gain goodwill in descriptive terms.
CHANNEL 4 WINS DESCRIPTIVE NAME PASSING OFF CASE CHANNEL 4 WINS DESCRIPTIVE NAME PASSING OFF CASE Reviewed by Unknown on Monday, April 10, 2006 Rating: 5

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

Powered by Blogger.