Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

TomTom Communications v. TomTom International - (18 Dec 2015)

Kiwis clear the road for TomTom registration

Intellectual Property Rights

The High Court of New Zealand at Auckland dismissed an appeal against registration of the mark ‘TomTom’, by the eponymous maker of satellite navigation equipment. Appellants, holders of the registered trade mark, ‘Tom Tom’ had claimed that use of both marks would cause confusion and later registration was in bad faith. The Court, however noted that evidence relied on by Appellants though showed confusion between the two marks, those who were confused or deceived were unaware of Appellant’s mark. Moreover, both marks were registered for very different services: while TomTom’s mark pertained to satellite, GPS, navigation and apparatus, Appellant’s mark was for marketing and public relations services.

Tags : TOMTOM   NEW ZEALAND   TRADE MARK   CONFUSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved