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 / Passing off / sidebar poll / similarity of packaging / Gama v Pal: those wipes -- and a sidebar poll

Gama v Pal: those wipes -- and a sidebar poll

- , , ,
Yesterday morning the IPKat posted this item on a procedural issue relating to amendment of pleadings in a passing-off action, Gama Healthcare Ltd v Pal International Ltd.  The blogpost featured a couple of illustrations that were not featured in the Lawtel note from which this Kat sourced his blogpost.  At the bottom of the post, the Kats explained:
The ... the illustrations ... were the closest to similar packaging that this Kat could lay his paws on via a Google Image search. If anyone has more confusingly similar images, do please share them.
The Kats have since received, via an anonymous benefactor, the following illustrations. The one on shown above, right, is the packaging of the claimant, Gama; on the left is the packaging of the defendant Pal. Might you be confused into picking the package on the right, mistaking it for the package on the left if you didn't have them both in front of you?  Whether you are a hospital or health authority purchasing officer, a private purchaser or a person being wet-wiped, the Kats are running a sidebar poll which will enable you to answer this question.

 Caveat: this poll is conducted purely for the amusement of readers of this weblog. It is not mandated by the trial judge or commissioned by either party; it is not based on any methodology and it is not intended to have any evidential value at all. 
Gama v Pal: those wipes -- and a sidebar poll Gama v Pal: those wipes -- and a sidebar poll Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, July 29, 2015 Rating: 5

6 comments:

  1. AnonymousWednesday, 29 July 2015 at 21:29:00 GMT+1

    I am no expert, however this appears a blatant attempt to confuse the average consumer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousThursday, 30 July 2015 at 10:12:00 GMT+1

    Is the average consumer really that bothered which brand of wet wipes they get?

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousThursday, 30 July 2015 at 11:59:00 GMT+1

    Anonymous @ 10:12,

    Your question, while perhaps meaningful in a realism sense, is expressly not a part of the equation.

    The fact of the matter that a trademark issue is put on the table takes your question off of the table precisely because someone cares enough to make a (federal) case of it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousThursday, 30 July 2015 at 12:47:00 GMT+1

    The fact that someone sues is hardly the point - it is not the average consumer suing. People sue for hopeless cases all the time. However the fact that the Defendants have chosen to adopt packaging plainly highly similar to the Claimant's packaging does seem germane. After all they must know the market, and they have taken the dangerous commercial decision to adopt that packaging. It seems unlikely that they took that decision lightly, and therefore one assumes that they thought the average consumer would be influenced by the packaging, i.e. does care.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousThursday, 30 July 2015 at 13:25:00 GMT+1

    The fact that someone sues is EXACTLY the point.

    The average consumer is a legal mechanism, applied to an issue at law.

    You are attempting a distinction that has no difference.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousThursday, 20 August 2015 at 13:14:00 GMT+1

    Lots of products are similiar and share the same colour but that does not lead to confusion. I can see the difference between these two as they are branded differently.

    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.