J F Home Improvements Ltd v Giddy

Note 1 This is not without its difficulties. See for example my decision as a UDRP panellist in Antonio de Felipe v. Registerfly.com, WIPO Case No. D2005-0969 where some of these difficulties are discussed. Nevertheless, the point is that rights akin to a trade mark recognised and enforceable in at least one jurisdiction are required. [Back]

Note 2 See also section 26(3), which provides that certain aspects of a company name are to be disregarded when it comes to determining whether or not one name is the same as another. [Back]

Note 3 It might be said that the complainant in that case was a licensee of the relevant mark and as such had rights under section 30 of the Trade Mark Act 1994. However, these rights are subject to certain formalities and provisos (see section 28(2) and the proviso in section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994). The appeal panel appeared prepared to accept that the complainant had Rights even though it may merely have been �authorised� by the owner of the mark. [Back]