Cormeton Fire Protection Ltd v Cormeton Electronics Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 18 January 2021
Neutral citation: [2021] EWHC 11 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerned rights to the name CORMETON after a 2003 business separation and the Claimant’s 2016 registration of the CORMETON trade mark. The court found there was an oral 2003 licence allowing the First Defendant to trade as CORMETON ELECTRONICS and keep the domain for electrical safety equipment, dismissed the Claimant’s copyright claim, rejected the Defendants’ invalidity and revocation challenges, and held that uses outside the 2003 licence (use of CORMETON alone and use in mechanical fire protection) infringed the registered mark and amounted to passing off. Defences of honest concurrent use, estoppel and acquiescence did not succeed.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The court held that absolute invalidity under s.3(3)(b) and revocation under s.46(1)(d) are not made out by facts amounting only to public confusion as to who trades under a mark; such confusion relates to relative rights rather than the absolute deceptiveness ground. The court also treated use under a licence from the proprietor as not giving rise to an honest concurrent use defence to later infringement by the licensee.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observed (following earlier authorities) that estoppel and acquiescence are unlikely to provide a shield against registered trade mark infringement and noted procedural points that identification of the specific artistic work is fundamental in copyright pleadings and late amendment in IPEC may be refused.