header-logo header-logo

Handle with care

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll