The Court held that deliberate campaigns to genericise a competitor's registered trade mark—including renaming one's own products to match the mark, instructing web developers to make the mark 'look generic not a brand name', and registering near-identical domain names—will be treated as use as a trade mark and strong evidence of flagrancy warranting additional damages. The good faith defence under s 122(1)(b) TMA will not be available where the adoption was motivated by competitive targeting rather than genuine descriptive need.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.