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

特立尼达和多巴哥

TT017-j

返回

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