Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: IPKatSinging the White Shark Grey Goods Blues ...
By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.
ADVERTISEMENTS
![]() |
| Great White Sharks can be pretty scary ... |
There are three key points to appreciate here:
1. According to the judge, when the registered owner of a trade mark consents to another person applying that mark to goods on condition that those goods must not be supplied outside a designated territory, the trade mark owner is not usually regarded as having consented to the application of the mark to goods which the other person knows, when the mark is applied, are to be supplied outside the territory. However, this a principle may be restricted to the specific facts of this case, because the evidence demonstrated that the licensee only made the goods after receiving a purchase order for them which was to be delivered outside the territory. It is not clear if the same conclusion would apply if the licensee was unaware of the destination of the goods or if the order was met from an existing stockpile.
2. In considering the authorities and concluding that the sole director of Paul's Retail, Paul Dwyer, was not liable for trade mark infringement as a joint tortfeasor, the Court considered that if a director is to be liable as a joint tortfeasor, something more than a finding that the director caused or directed his company to perform infringing acts is required. The extent of the director's personal involvement and his state of mind is important. Whether the director held an honest belief that the acts which he directed or procured were not unlawful is also a significant (and, in this case, decisive) consideration.
3. Obiter, the court rejected Paul's Retail's submission that there is an onus on GWSE to show that the consent defence under section 123 of the Act does not apply. As a matter of construction, because section 123 of the Act creates an exception to infringement, the burden of proof lies on the person invoking the section. However, in certain circumstances, it may take little for the evidential burden to shift to the registered owner.
![]() |
| ... but the IPKat is not easily intimidated |
Great White Shark here
Great White Sharks here
Great White Shark recipe here
Three Little Fishes here [not-to-be-missed performance by Frankie Howerd]
Full post as published by IPKat on November 16, 2010 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
ValueClick
allegedly violated consumer protection laws by promising ‘free’ goods that where not actually free.
Rock Band Great White
Settles Over 2003 Station NightClub Fire
Housing Buyer Discrimination
White homeowner settles $30,000 buyer-discrimination lawsuit.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Singing the prison blues Incarceration rate has direct impact on Florida's finances
Lonely "Virgin Mary" Shark Proves Her Species Doesn't Need Males Either
Koko Taylor Asks Tax Court to Force IRS to Accept Her Offer in Compromise
US Weighs Copyright As Barrier To Grey Market Imports
Guess I should buy me a fedora










