Trade Mark Law and Sharing Names

Trade Mark Law and Sharing Names

Exploring Use of the Same Mark by Multiple Undertakings

Edited by IIanah Simon Fhima

There are a number of points throughout the trade mark system where multiple undertakings share the same name, either unwillingly, or by consent. In this timely book, expert contributors address this controversial issue and identify the various points at which names are shared. This unique book uses both historical and interdisciplinary perspectives, as well as more traditional legal methodology, to examine the practical and theoretical implications of such name sharing for the parties involved. It analyses what can be learned from the sharing process about the nature of the trade mark system and the interests which it protects. General themes relating to the nature and purpose of trade mark law are also discussed.

Chapter 7: Same Name, Different Goods – Death of the Principle of Specialty

Ilanah Simon Fhima

Subjects: law - academic, intellectual property law

Extract

Ilanah Simon Fhima 1. INTRODUCTION In a nutshell, the principle of specialty dictates that a mark’s scope of protection will be limited to combating later use on identical or similar goods and services. As a corollary of this principle, mark owners cannot prevent later users from using their marks on dissimilar goods and services. Thus, the principle of specialty forces mark owners to ‘share’ the names of their goods and services on certain goods. This chapter will begin by briefly considering the background to the specialty principle, and the effect that this forced sharing of names has. It will go on to argue that specialty has been eroded in two, ultimately distinct, ways: 1. by an expansion of the situations in which the courts hearing both passing off cases and registered trade mark cases are prepared to recognize the existence of actionable confusion and through the adoption of dilution and unfair advantage as independently actionable forms of registered trade mark infringement. 2. However, it will conclude that the principle of specialty never really went away. Although it no longer has the ‘veto power’ it once did over registered and unregistered trade mark infringement actions, specialty remains alive and well, if somewhat reduced, not only in confusion-based infringement, particularly in the field of passing off, but also where one might least expect it – in dilution cases. 101 102 Shared name litigation 2. 2.1 WHAT’S SO SPECIAL ABOUT SPECIALTY? Specialty – A Very Brief History The specialty rule has been influential in many...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information