Madhya Pradesh High Court: Victims Must be Given a Hearing Even Before Closure Report Rejection  ||  Delhi HC: Payment of ‘Pagri’ Does Not Render Tenancy Non-Terminable, Allowing Eviction  ||  Ker HC Examined Whether Electro-Homeopathy Can be Practised Without Registration under Medical Laws  ||  Delhi HC: Better Possessory Title Holder Can Recover Property From Occupant Without Superior Right  ||  Bombay High Court: Compensatory Afforestation Must Be in Same or Nearby Locality For Residents  ||  Bombay High Court Protects ‘MEFTAL-SPAS’, Restrains Use of Similar Drug Brand  ||  Supreme Court: Inclusion in Revised Select List Does Not Give TN MV Inspectors a Vested Right  ||  Bombay HC: ICC Cannot Hear Sexual Harassment Complaint over Non-Employer Transport Incident  ||  Ker HC Upholds Rule that Homeopathic Doctors Must Cancel Registration Before Enrolment as Advocates  ||  J&K&L HC: Evidence Negating Penetration Warrants Conviction For Attempt to Rape, Not Rape    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved