About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

TT017-j

Back

H.C.A. No. 528 of 2003

This case concerns three separate applications for an injunction to restrain the defendant from (a) infringing the claimant’s registered trademark, (b) from passing off, (c) from committing acts of unfair competition and for delivery up or destruction of goods and an inquiry into damages. In another matter, H.C.A No. 550 of 2003, the defendant brought a claim against the claimant seeking an order to expunge the claimant’s trademark from the Trademarks Register. The defendant’s claim against the claimant was still pending when the judgment in this matter was issued.

The claimant alleged that between August and October 2002, the defendant changed the imagery on their milk products (Nestle Full Cream Milk, Low Fat Milk with Omega, Svelty skimmed milk and Svelty Calcium Plus skimmed milk powdered) to include a glass with a white splash of liquid as a predominant feature, which is the same or similar to their ‘get-up’, causing confusion. In defense, it was argued that the direction for the package comes from Switzerland with no local input and no room to make modifications.

The defendant further argued that the contested imagery was not unique to the claimant’s goods, being widely used in industry both locally and abroad.

The claimant proposed that the injunction be suspended for a period of six months to allow the defendant time to change their labelling. This, it was argued by the defendant, would result in millions of dollars in loss, as 50% of the plant operations would have to be shut down, resulting in layoffs and local farmers losing business as no milk would be bought for that period of time. The alternative, which was the use of stickers on the existing packaging, was not feasible according to the defendant, as placing stickers would delay their production line and it would take six months to acquire a new design.

The court concluded:

Regarding trademark infringement: No particulars were provided by the claimant of actual infringement of the trademark by the defendant.

Regarding unfair competition/passing-off: Substantial evidence was provided by both parties by way of affidavit and other means. The court was of the view that there was a serious issue to be tried, which is a required element in an application for an interlocutory injunction.

Regarding the balance of justice: The claimant sells only powdered milk, whereas the defendant sells both powdered and liquid milk. There is substantial potential loss not only to the claimant but also to the milk industry, which could suffer millions of dollars in loss as a result of the injunction. Justice lied in refusing the injunction.

The court further found it unlikely that a casual customer would be confused between the two goods; one is liquid milk in tetra packs while the other is powdered milk in pillow packs, with a different design and color scheme. Thus, the court considered that the claimant will have a challenge proving the likelihood of confusion.

Cases referred to:

Schweppes Ltd v Gibbens 22 RPC 601

De Cordova & Ors. V Vick Chemical Co. 1951 68 RPC 103

Taverner Rutledge Ltd. V Specters Ltd. 1959 14 RPC 355

American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. 1975 AC 3&6