关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX006-j

返回

Court of Appeal of Jamaica [2017]: 3M Company v. Manufacturera 3M SA DE CV [2017] JMCA Civ 21

Court of Appeal of Jamaica [2017]: 3M Company v. Manufacturera 3M SA DE CV [2017] JMCA Civ 21

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 1: Emerging Issues in Trademarks

Court of Appeal of Jamaica [2017]: 3M Company v. Manufacturera 3M SA DE CV [2017]
JMCA Civ 21

Date of judgment: July 21, 2017
Issuing authority: Court of Appeal of Jamaica
Level of the issuing authority: Appellate Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �br> Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff: 3M Company
Defendant: Manufacturera 3M SA de CV
Keywords: Trademark registration, Bad faith, Likelihood of confusion

Basic facts: 3M is an American Company and proprietor of the trademark “3M”, which has been registered in Jamaica since 1971 in respect of numerous classes, including class 7 (various types of agricultural equipment), class 11 (various types of food processing and sanitary equipment) and class 12 (various types of vehicles) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TMA) and the Trade Mark Rules, 2001. The registered mark of 3M is shown below:

M3M is a company incorporated in Mexico that manufactures machinery and spare parts used in the sugar industry. M3M sought to register the following “3M & Device” mark

M3M’s application was initially refused but subsequently granted by the Registrar of Industrial Property (registrar). 3M lodged an objection, but the registrar ruled in favor of M3M’s mark, and 3M initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of Jamaica.

At first instance, Sykes J (now Chief Justice), relying on decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Community and the 1988 First Council Directive, ruled in favor of M3M’s registration. 3M appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held: The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Supreme Court. Hilary Phillips JA, who delivered the judgment of the Court, also relied on a number of European cases to rule that registration should be refused.

Relevant holdings in relation to emerging issues in trademarks [specifically, bad faith trademark filings]:

1. Due to the marks of 3M and M3M being aurally identical or highly similar and the respective goods being identical or similar, there was a likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the 3M mark was well-known and there was a potential dilution and tarnishing of the reputation of the mark.

2. M3M’s knowledge of 3M’s earlier registered mark, and the repeated opposition by 3M to M3M’s application to register the “3M & Device” mark in other jurisdictions (where the oppositions were upheld against M3M), illustrate that there was no honest concurrent use of the mark “3M & Device”. M3M could therefore not rely on s. 15 of the TMA to register its mark.

3. For the same reasons, M3M’s application was made in bad faith, and M3M was debarred from registering its mark by s. 11 of the TMA.

Relevant legislation:
Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Trade Mark Rules, 2001