Propiedad intelectual Formación en PI Respeto por la PI Divulgación de la PI La PI para... La PI y… La PI en… Información sobre patentes y tecnología Información sobre marcas Información sobre diseños industriales Información sobre las indicaciones geográficas Información sobre las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Recursos de PI Informes sobre PI Protección por patente Protección de las marcas Protección de diseños industriales Protección de las indicaciones geográficas Protección de las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Solución de controversias en materia de PI Soluciones operativas para las oficinas de PI Pagar por servicios de PI Negociación y toma de decisiones Cooperación para el desarrollo Apoyo a la innovación Colaboraciones público-privadas Herramientas y servicios de IA La Organización Trabajar con la OMPI Rendición de cuentas Patentes Marcas Diseños industriales Indicaciones geográficas Derecho de autor Secretos comerciales Academia de la OMPI Talleres y seminarios Observancia de la PI WIPO ALERT Sensibilizar Día Mundial de la PI Revista de la OMPI Casos prácticos y casos de éxito Novedades sobre la PI Premios de la OMPI Empresas Universidades Pueblos indígenas Judicatura Recursos genéticos, conocimientos tradicionales y expresiones culturales tradicionales Economía Financiación Activos intangibles Igualdad de género Salud mundial Cambio climático Política de competencia Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible Tecnologías de vanguardia Aplicaciones móviles Deportes Turismo PATENTSCOPE Análisis de patentes Clasificación Internacional de Patentes ARDI - Investigación para la innovación ASPI - Información especializada sobre patentes Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas Madrid Monitor Base de datos Artículo 6ter Express Clasificación de Niza Clasificación de Viena Base Mundial de Datos sobre Dibujos y Modelos Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Internacionales Base de datos Hague Express Clasificación de Locarno Base de datos Lisbon Express Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas para indicaciones geográficas Base de datos de variedades vegetales PLUTO Base de datos GENIE Tratados administrados por la OMPI WIPO Lex: leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Normas técnicas de la OMPI Estadísticas de PI WIPO Pearl (terminología) Publicaciones de la OMPI Perfiles nacionales sobre PI Centro de Conocimiento de la OMPI Informes de la OMPI sobre tendencias tecnológicas Índice Mundial de Innovación Informe mundial sobre la propiedad intelectual PCT - El sistema internacional de patentes ePCT Budapest - El Sistema internacional de depósito de microorganismos Madrid - El sistema internacional de marcas eMadrid Artículo 6ter (escudos de armas, banderas, emblemas de Estado) La Haya - Sistema internacional de diseños eHague Lisboa - Sistema internacional de indicaciones geográficas eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediación Arbitraje Determinación de expertos Disputas sobre nombres de dominio Acceso centralizado a la búsqueda y el examen (CASE) Servicio de acceso digital (DAS) WIPO Pay Cuenta corriente en la OMPI Asambleas de la OMPI Comités permanentes Calendario de reuniones WIPO Webcast Documentos oficiales de la OMPI Agenda para el Desarrollo Asistencia técnica Instituciones de formación en PI Apoyo para COVID-19 Estrategias nacionales de PI Asesoramiento sobre políticas y legislación Centro de cooperación Centros de apoyo a la tecnología y la innovación (CATI) Transferencia de tecnología Programa de Asistencia a los Inventores (PAI) WIPO GREEN PAT-INFORMED de la OMPI Consorcio de Libros Accesibles Consorcio de la OMPI para los Creadores WIPO Translate Conversión de voz a texto Asistente de clasificación Estados miembros Observadores Director general Actividades por unidad Oficinas en el exterior Ofertas de empleo Adquisiciones Resultados y presupuesto Información financiera Supervisión
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Leyes Tratados Sentencias Consultar por jurisdicción

Trinidad y Tabago

TT010-j

Atrás

(1972) 20 WIR 445

This case concerns an application for injunction owing to an alleged trademark infringement and passing off.

The claimants initially exported their goods to Trinidad and Tobago, but in 1970, they licensed a local company to manufacture the goods. The product had a registered trademark, which was due to expire on June 8, 1976. The mark comprised of a bunch of mixed temperate fruit with the words ‘Fruit of the Loom’ inscribed above the fruit and was registered in Class 38 with respect to clothing. The goods were sold in a clear plastic bag bearing the registered mark.

In February 1976, the defendants obtained registration of a similar mark in the classes of cotton piece goods and synthetic fibers, including sheets and pillowcases. The defendants sold similar goods in clear plastic bags with a label that was alleged to be similar to the claimants, thereby causing confusion; the bag had a label with a branch of mixed fruit and the words ‘Tropical Fruits’ printed in the same or similar print as the claimant’s product.

A letter was sent to the defendant by the claimant informing them of the infringement and requesting that they cease using the trademark or otherwise face legal action. The defendant responded, denying any infringement but offering to discontinue the brand if permitted to use the remaining 20,000 plastic bags that were in stock, noting that it was a former partner’s idea to use the imagery on the plastic bags. The claimant agreed to allow the defendants to use the bags up until December 31, 1976, but a request for an extension was made owing to the defendant not being able to manufacture goods due to a shortage of material. An extension was granted with an undertaking that damages will be paid if the goods continue to be sold past the deadline. No undertaking was in fact given by the defendant. On December 7, 1967, the defendants wrote again asking for a further extension, which was granted to March 31, 1968, and noted by the claimant as the final extension.

The question the court had to decide was whether the defendant’s use of the mark fell within s. 5(1) of the Trade Marks Ordinance 1955. In other words, was the mark likely to cause confusion or deception – was there an intention to deceive?

The claimant was required to prove that the mark and their goods had become distinctive in the eyes of the buyer. Claimant’s counsel presented no evidence of deception or confusion, simply relying on the argument of ‘similarity’ in appearance and the likelihood that the public would be deceived. The defense argued that there must be evidence of an intention to deceive but the court, relying on Kelly on Trade Marks (8th ed.), p. 334, found that the absence of an intention to deceive is no defense. As such, the court was left to make a determination without evidence of deception and decided that the defendant’s label was an imitation of that of the claimant.

On the question of passing off, the court had to decide whether the conduct of the defendant in using a similar mark was likely to cause confusion or damage to the claimant’s trade. It was held that the after repeated extensions by the claimant permitting the defendant to use the mark temporarily, the continued use by the defendant of the mark no longer remained innocent.

The court was satisfied that the average purchaser would mistakenly purchase the defendant’s good thinking it was claimant’s, despite the differences of (a) ‘Tropical ’fruit' versus ‘Fruit of the Loom’, (b) different colors and (c) different sizes in the labels:

“The arrangement is so similar that the colour tones and differences in the nature of the fruit became insignificant and the whole representation is, as I have already said, a colourable imitation of the C’s get up or package…” – p. 449, I.

The use of ‘Tropical Fruit’ further demonstrated deception on the part of the defendant. Finally, the court found that the defendant’s mark was a copy of claimant’s and continued use constituted infringement. As such, the injunction was granted prohibiting the defendant from using the mark of the claimant.

Cases referred to:

Spalding v Gomage (A.W.) Ltd., [1914] 2 Ch. 405; 83 L.J. Ch 855; 111 L.T. 829; 58 Sol. Jo. 722.

Jay v. Ladler (1888), 40 Ch. D. 649 L.T. 27; 37 W.R. 505; 5 T.L.R. 57; 6 R.P.C. 136.