A moron in a hurry

Last updated

A moron in a hurry is a phrase that has been used in legal cases, especially in the UK, involving trademark infringement and passing off. Where one party alleges that another (the defendant) has infringed their intellectual property rights by offering for sale a product that is confusably similar to their own, the court has to decide whether a reasonable person would be misled by the defendant's trademark or the get-up of their product. It has been held that "if only a moron in a hurry would be misled" the case is not made out. [1] Although this formulation addresses only fairly extreme instances of confusability, and says nothing about less clear examples, the phrase is sometimes referred to as a "test". [2]

Contents

UK

Origin

The phrase was first used by Mr Justice Foster in the 1978 English High Court case Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Limited, [3] in which the publishers of the Morning Star , a British Communist Party publication, sought an injunction to prevent Express Newspapers from launching a new tabloid to be called the Daily Star . [4] The judge ruled against the Morning Star, noting that, "If one puts the two papers side by side I for myself would find that the two papers are so different in every way that only a moron in a hurry would be misled." [4]

Later examples

The phrase was quoted in the same context in Newsweek Inc. v British Broadcasting Corp. [5] by Lord Denning. [6] [7] [8]

In 2006 the phrase was used in legal argument in the case of Apple Corps v Apple Computer , between Apple Corps (the record label started by the Beatles in 1968) and Apple Computer Inc. (makers of Macintosh computers). Apple Computer argued that "[e]ven a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about" the difference between iTunes and the Apple Corps record label. Apple Corps' logo was a green Granny Smith apple, whereas Apple Computer's logo was a "cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side". [9] Judgment was given in favour of Apple Computer Inc.

Canada

In Canada the phrase was first considered in C.M.S. Industries Ltd. v. UAP Inc., [10] where the court held that UAP had infringed the plaintiff's trademark. [11] Four years later, in Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. , the Supreme Court of Canada moved away from the "moron" analysis, adopting in its place consideration of an "ordinary hurried purchaser", a standard between that of a "moron" and a "careful and diligent purchaser". [12] Mattel is now the standard in Canada.

Pakistan

In 2017 the Sindh High Court used the "moron in a hurry" test as one of several approaches to compare competing syrup drink products. The plaintiff, owner of the well known ROOH AFZA trademark, sued a company who had started selling a very similar product under the mark ROOH-E-SAMAR. The court held that the respective marks were similar, and that a less than prudent customer would undoubtedly be deceived given the minute differences between the colour of the band and the placement of fruits on the respective wrappers. [2]

United States

Attorney Marc J. Randazza used the phrase as part of his defence in Beck v. Eiland-Hall for his client's use of Glenn Beck's name in a parody website. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States trademark law</span>

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

In trademark law, confusing similarity is a test used during the examination process to determine whether a trademark conflicts with another, earlier mark, and also in trademark infringement proceedings to determine whether the use of a mark infringes a registered trademark.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Design patent</span> US Patent Law

In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of an article of manufacture. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

<i>Fox v. Franken</i>

Fox News Network, LLC, v. Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Alan S. Franken was a civil lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 7, 2003. Fox News Channel, the plaintiff, sought to enjoin Al Franken from using Fox News's trademark phrase "fair & balanced" in the title of his then-forthcoming book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. Judge Denny Chin denied Fox's motion for injunction on August 22, and the network dropped the suit three days later.

<i>Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc.</i>

Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., 426 F.3d 1001, is a trademark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the name of one of the largest ice cream truck franchise companies in the United States was neither distinctive nor famous enough to receive protection against being used in a violent video game.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian trademark law</span>

Canadian trademark law provides protection to marks by statute under the Trademarks Act and also at common law. Trademark law provides protection for distinctive marks, certification marks, distinguishing guises, and proposed marks against those who appropriate the goodwill of the mark or create confusion between different vendors' goods or services. A mark can be protected either as a registered trademark under the Act or can alternately be protected by a common law action in passing off.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<i>Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc</i> Canadian Supreme Court case about trademark names

Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc[2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".

Between 1978 and 2007 there were a number of legal disputes between Apple Corps and the computer manufacturer Apple Computer over competing trademark rights, specifically over the use of the name "Apple" and their respective logos which consist of a profile of an apple. Apple Inc. paid Apple Corps. over three settlements: $80,000 in 1978, $26.5 million in 1991, and $500 million in 2007, when Apple Inc. acquired all the trademarks related to "Apple."

In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright.

Trademark distinctiveness is an important concept in the law governing trademarks and service marks. A trademark may be eligible for registration, or registrable, if it performs the essential trademark function, and has distinctive character. Registrability can be understood as a continuum, with "inherently distinctive" marks at one end, "generic" and "descriptive" marks with no distinctive character at the other end, and "suggestive" and "arbitrary" marks lying between these two points. "Descriptive" marks must acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning—consumers have come to recognize the mark as a source indicator—to be protectable. "Generic" terms are used to refer to the product or service itself and cannot be used as trademarks.

<i>Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.</i> Series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records

Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894, was a series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records that resulted from the 1997 hit single "Barbie Girl" by Danish-Norwegian group Aqua. The case was ultimately dismissed.

Bristows is a full-service commercial, law firm, particularly known for its technology and intellectual property work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark infringement</span> Violation of trademark rights

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

In Canada, passing off is both a common law tort and a statutory cause of action under the Canadian Trade-marks Act referring to the deceptive representation or marketing of goods or services by competitors in a manner that confuses consumers. The law of passing off protects the goodwill of businesses by preventing competitors from passing off their goods as those of another.

Under Canadian trade-mark law, "confusion" is where a trade-mark is similar enough to another trade-mark to cause consumers to equate them. Likelihood of confusion plays a central role in trade-mark registration, infringement and passing-off. Whether a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing is a question of fact. The role of confusion in trade-mark law is analogous to the role of substantial infringement in patent law.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, who typically responded with countersuits. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the smartphone wars: extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

<i>College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc.</i>

College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc., No. 09-50596 was an unpublished appellate level case in the Fifth Circuit that upheld a district court jury decision to dismiss the purchase of trademarked keywords as infringing. The original suit was brought on a claim of trademark infringement in the purchase of certain advertising keywords that the defendant countered with claims of defamation and tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations. The main issue addressed in the appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the counterclaims of the defendant. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, but vacated the award for tortious interference.

<i>Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods.</i> Legal case regarding copyrights

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792, was a case between Mattel and Tom Forsythe in which Mattel sued Forsythe for the production and sale of photographs portraying "Barbie" dolls. Mattel alleged that Forsythe's use of Barbie's name and likeness in his "Food Chain Barbie" photo series infringed on their copyrights, trademarks, and trade dress. The court held that Mattel's trademark and trade dress claims were "groundless or unreasonable" and therefore ordered Mattel to pay 1.8 million dollars in legal fees to Forsythe under the Lanham Act.

References

  1. ↑ Cornish, W. R. (1989). Intellectual property : Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks, and Allied Rights (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 415, note 88. ISBN   0-421-37980-4. OCLC   24212824.
  2. 1 2 Manssor, Seema S (31 July 2017). "High court uses 'moron in a hurry', Lapp and classic trinity tests to decide trademark infringement case". Lexology. Archived from the original on 4 January 2022. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  3. ↑ Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Limited [1979] FSR 113
  4. 1 2 Miller, Jeffrey (2003). Where There's Life, There's Lawsuits. ECW Press. pp. 125–126. ISBN   978-1-55022-501-3 . Retrieved 18 February 2014.
  5. ↑ Newsweek Inc. v British Broadcasting Corp. [1979] R.P.C. 441
  6. ↑ "Newsweek Inc. v British Broadcasting Corporation". Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases. 96 (20). Oxford University Press for the Intellectual Property Office: 441–9. 1979. doi:10.1093/rpc/1979rpc441. ISSN   1756-1000.(subscription required)
  7. ↑ High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (1 January 1979). "Newsweek Inc. v. British Broadcasting Corporation". Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases. 96 (20): 441–449. doi:10.1093/rpc/1979rpc441. ISSN   0080-1364.
  8. ↑ Choo, Han Teck (18 January 2002). "The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v United States Polo Association". www.singaporelaw.sg. Archived from the original on 13 September 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
  9. ↑ Associated Press (31 March 2006). "Apple Defends Its Use of Logo on iTunes Store". The New York Times .
  10. ↑ C.M.S. Industries Ltd. v. UAP Inc. (2002 SKQB 303)
  11. ↑ "C.M.S. Industries Ltd. v. UAP Inc., SKQB 303 (CanLII) 2002". 22 July 2002. Archived from the original on 18 February 2014. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
  12. ↑ "Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22, [2006] 1 SCR 772". 2006. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
  13. ↑ Anderson, Nate (30 September 2009). "Memes strike back: Gerbils, gay blood elves, and Glenn Beck". Ars Technica.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.