Montex Holdings Ltd. v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [2001] IESC 36; [2002] 1 ILRM 208 (5 April 2001)

Montex Holdings Ltd. v. Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks [2001] IESC 36; [2002] 1 ILRM 208 (5 April 2001)

Likelihood of confusion between the applicant's and opponent's marks is sufficient to mandate refusal of registration under s. 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1963; no requirement for blameworthy conduct.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] IESC 36
Parties
Applicant: Diesel Clothing Ltd.; First Named Defendant: Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks; Second Named Defendant: Diesel S.p.A.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Registration Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Registration, Likelihood of Confusion, Blameworthiness, Honest Concurrent User
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Registration Likelihood of Confusion Blameworthiness Honest Concurrent User

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diesel Clothing Ltd.

Applicant

Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

First Named Defendant

Diesel S.p.A.

Second Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Registration Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether likelihood of confusion alone is sufficient to refuse trade mark registration under s. 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether blameworthy conduct is required for refusal under s. 19

Ratio Decidendi

Likelihood of confusion between the applicant's and opponent's marks is sufficient to mandate refusal of registration under s. 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1963; no requirement for blameworthy conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Registration of the trade mark DIESEL refused