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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll