header-logo header-logo

01 July 2010 / Louisa Albertini
Issue: 7424 / Categories: Intellectual property , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Handle with care

Louisa Albertini highlights the importance of a clearly drafted trade mark coexistence agreement

A recent High Court case has confirmed that English courts will enforce trade mark coexistence agreements and allow trade marks to be registered which might impinge upon earlier rights where consent to the registration has been given.

This case (Omega Engineering Incorporated v Omega SA [2010] EWHC 1211 (Ch), 28 May 2010) demonstrates the importance of careful drafting of coexistence agreements to ensure that they clearly set out the ambit of parties’ trade mark rights.

OMEGA—the background facts

Omega SA (Swiss) is a watchmaker that was founded in 1848. An American company, Omega Engineering Inc (Engineering) was founded in 1962 and manufactures and markets products for the measurement and control of certain elements including temperature and humidity.

There has been a long-running dispute between the parties over the use of the OMEGA and ? marks. Although their businesses are quite different, their products bear some similarities. In an attempt to avoid potential confusion, the parties have entered into a number

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
back-to-top-scroll