BMW Nederland BV v Deenik [1999] C-63/97
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:13:45 UTC
Claimant sued Defendant, a car dealer, who described himself as being a specialist in repair and maintenance of BMWs.
Claimant claimed that this was unlawful use of their trade mark.
Held
Defendant could rely on defence of use to indicate intended purpose.
This because use of mark was necessary for Claimant to communicate to public what sort of work he did.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Adam Opel v Autec
Claimant, car manufacturer, had trade mark for its logo for cars and toys. Defendant sold remote-controlled scale-models of one of Claimant’s cars, with Claimant’s trade mark on them. Claimant sued f...
La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA
Defendant was French company who made seaweed-based products, sold under mark ‘Laboratoires de la Mer’. Claimant sought to have mark revoked in on grounds of non-use. Defendant’s only sales were wort...
R Griggs Group Ltd & Ors v Evans & Ors
Manufacturer of ‘Doc Martens’ commissioned ad agency to create a logo. Ad agency hired Defendant, a freelance designer, to do this. Defendant subsequently assigned copyright in logo to an Australian...
Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy
Defendant produced razor blade handle; on packet, was stated that handle was compatible with certain types of razor produced by Claimant. Claimant claimed that this infringed their trade marks in the...
Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd
Defendant made prefabricated buildings to design specified by Claimant. Claimant communicated manufacturing details and technical specifications to Defendant for this purpose. At end of contract, Def...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.