The report is a bit sketchy, but the IPKat is trying to square this finding with two facts: (i) in R v Johnstone, the person using the trade mark for the music was the record company, not the artist (though maybe what’s going on here is that Apple Computer is a third entity, separate from both the record company and the artist, sort of like a record store) and (ii) we allow trade mark registrations for retail services separate from the goods that those retailers are selling.
The report is a bit sketchy, but the IPKat is trying to square this finding with two facts: (i) in R v Johnstone, the person using the trade mark for the music was the record company, not the artist (though maybe what’s going on here is that Apple Computer is a third entity, separate from both the record company and the artist, sort of like a record store) and (ii) we allow trade mark registrations for retail services separate from the goods that those retailers are selling.
The judgment is available here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/996.html
ReplyDelete