25 Sept 2014
LACOSTE v CROCODILE INTERNATIONAL PTE LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2349
- Citation
- [2014] NZHC 2349
- Court
- High Court
The Assistant Commissioner erred by focusing on a single used form and by finding the minor differences altered the distinctive character of the registered mark; the court applied s7(1)(a) correctly by comparing all used forms with the registered mark and concluded the differences were insignificant to the average consumer, and that proof of use at any time within the relevant continuous three-year period (24 May 2005–24 May 2008) defeated revocation, therefore the revocation order was set aside.