1 March, 2018
This is a dispute between, among others, a mother and her son. Both the first plaintiff and the first defendant are in the business of manufacture, distribution and retail of rice. One of the issues in this case includes whether there was trade mark infringement.
The learned JC held that, in deciding whether there is a likelihood of confusion/deception under section 38(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1976, parties are neither required to adduce evidence from the consumers and retailers of the goods or service in question nor to call experts to give their expert views on likelihood of confusion/deception. These evidence is not relevant in the Court’s determination of likelihood of confusion/deception. Actual confusion or deception may be relevant to the question of loss or damage caused by the trade mark infringement.
The plaintiffs’ claims in this case were allowed with costs.
For further information, please contact:
Karen Abraham, Partner, Shearn Delamore & Co
karen@shearndelamore.com
