O'Callaghan v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC

Date

26 November 1996

Legislation

Trade Marks Act 1994 s92

Keywords

counterfeit goods; evidence

Counsel

Unknown,

Solicitors

Davey

Judge

Butterfield J

Court

Court of Appeal

Reported

[1997] COD 164

Summary

There was a clearly evidence that the defendant was offering watches for sale with the view to gain for himself without the consent of Gucci. The remaining element requiring proof under s.92 TMA 1994 was whether the watches bore a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for a registered trade mark, in this case the distinctive colours of Gucci.

Decision:

The magistrates wrongly approached the evidence proving this element therefore the matter was remitted to them with the direction that they continue with the hearing.