Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

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