Law of Trade Marks and Brand Names Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Law of Trade Marks and Brand Names - Essay Exampleng (1) it is justifiable based on the premise of customer welfare and informed decision of consumers (2) it is not justifiable since it creates foul competition.Before 1994, a number of English laws have been restricting but never prohibiting comparative advertisement. For instances, chthonian section 4(1) (b) of the Trade Marks identification number 1938, it is considered an infringement of mark if a third party uses the trademark of another in its advertising regardless of the nature of such advertisement. However, this all changed when Trade Marks Act (TMA) 1994 was enacted, English law then took a firm stand on comparative advertising. Following the comestible of s 10(6) of the TMA, comparative advertising is now permitted. Section 10(6) of the TMA has been interpreted as to allow comparative advertising as long as the use of the competitors mark is honest.2 In the spoken language of Laddie J is the movement of Barclays Ba nk v RBS Advanta (1996) 3, there is nothing wrong with telling the public of the relative merits of competition goods and services and using registered trademarks to identify them.In most cases brought before the Courts, the question has been on the issue of justifiability of unfavourable comparisons employed by competitors. Would unfavourable comparisons be a kind of breach to the benchmarks of candor as indicated in Section 10(6) will result to infringement of trademarks? If the use is considered honest by members of a reasonable audience, it will not infringe.4 In the Courts decision in the case of British Airways Plc V Ryaniar Limited, Jacob J said that people are already very much receptive to advertising and already know better that believe everything that is being said in advertisements. They expect overstatement and puff.5 The fact that the advertising pokes fun6 at the competitors goods and services with great focus on the benefits offered by the advertiser is not enou gh to warrant infringement as this considered normal