Delhi HC: Girl Being Friendly on Valentine’s Day Does Not Justify Forced Sexual Activity under POCSO  ||  Delhi HC: Street Vendors Must Maintain Cleanliness and Not Encroach on Public Spaces  ||  Delhi HC: Victim’s Negligence Cannot Bar Compensation in Railway Accident Cases  ||  Jharkhand HC: Pre-1947 Transfers Exempt from Section 46; 45-Year Delay Blocks Restoration  ||  Delhi HC: Mediation Settlement Does Not Remove Criminal Liability But Can be Considered For Bail  ||  Delhi High Court: Newslaundry Acted Maliciously and Showed Intolerance Toward TV Today  ||  SC: New Tree Growth on Land Approved For Development Does Not Qualify it as 'Deemed Forest'  ||  SC: Confiscation Proceedings Can Continue Against Wife of Deceased Public Servant with Illicit Asset  ||  Supreme Court: Strict Procedure Must be Followed under UP Gangsters Act Due to Serious Consequences  ||  Supreme Court: HCs Can Go Beyond FIR to Quash Frivolous or Vexatious Criminal Cases    

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