Subsequent action(s) None | Decided 12 June 1981 | |
Citation(s) [1982] Ch. 119
[1981] 3 All E.R. 241
[1982] R.P.C. 69
(1981) 125 S.J. 527
Times, June 13, 1981 Cases cited DP Anderson & Co Ltd v Lieber Code Co, [1917] 2 K.B. 469 (KBD)
Hollinrake v Truswell, [1894] 3 Ch. 420 (CA) Legislation cited Companies Act 1948 s.18
Companies Act 1948 s.18(1)
Copyright Act 1956 s.1
Copyright Act 1956 s.2
Copyright Act 1956 s.2(1)
Copyright Act 1956 s.6
Copyright Act 1956 s.17
Copyright Act 1956 s.48
Copyright Act 1911 s.1
Copyright Act 1911 s.1(1)
Copyright Act 1911 s.35
Copyright Act 1842
Trade Marks Act 1938 s.9
Trade Marks Act 1938 s.9(1)(c)
Trade Marks Act 1919
Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.19
Rules Supreme Court Ord.19 r.7
Rules of the Supreme Court r.7 Prior action(s) Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 624
[1981] 2 All E.R. 495
[1981] F.S.R. 238
(1981) 125 S.J. 342 (Ch D) Judge(s) sitting Stephenson, L.J.
Sir David Cairns, L.J.
Oliver, L.J. Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales People also search for Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corp, Walter v Lane | ||
Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119 is a leading decision in English law on the existence of copyright in a name alone and the infringement of a trade mark. The Court found that typically there is no copyright in a name, invented or otherwise, and that a trade mark can only be infringed when there the infringing party shares part of the market segment.
Trade mark
With regards to the trade mark, the Court found that the use of this word by the defendants who work in a field that in no way shares a market segment with the plaintiff in no way dilutes the plaintiff's brand name nor infringes on its trade mark.
References
Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd Wikipedia(Text) CC BY-SA