Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119 is a leading decision in English law on the existence of copyright in a name alone and the infringement of a trade mark. The Court found that typically there is no copyright in a name, invented or otherwise, and that a trade mark can only be infringed when the infringing party shares part of the market segment.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119 is a leading decision in English law on the existence of copyright in a name alone and the infringement of a trade mark. The Court found that typically there is no copyright in a name, invented or otherwise, and that a trade mark can only be infringed when the infringing party shares part of the market segment. (en)
|
name
| - Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
sameAs
| |
subsequent actions
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
citations
| |
court
| |
full name
| - Exxon Corporation and (en)
- Exxon Insurance Consultants (en)
- International Limited (en)
|
italic title
| |
judges
| - Oliver, L.J. (en)
- Sir David Cairns, L.J. (en)
- Stephenson, L.J. (en)
|
keywords
| - Literary works, Trade names (en)
|
has abstract
| - Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119 is a leading decision in English law on the existence of copyright in a name alone and the infringement of a trade mark. The Court found that typically there is no copyright in a name, invented or otherwise, and that a trade mark can only be infringed when the infringing party shares part of the market segment. The Plaintiff, Exxon Corp, had claimed the copyright of the word and went on to file an injunction to stop the defendant company from using the word 'Exxon', under Exxon's copyright claim to its own name under English Copyright law, protecting 'original literary works' and further asked the defendant company to remove the word from the company name. However, Judge Oliver decided to not grant the injunction to an infringement of copyright and noted that the word did not qualify for copyright protection as an ′original literary work′. This is because it conveyed no information, provides no instruction nor pleasure and is furthermore merely a combination of letters from the alphabet. Judge Graham quoted '"if the plaintiffs' argument is right .... the consequences would be far-reaching and probably in many cases objectionable'. On appeal it was further emphasised by Lord Justice Stevenson that 'I am not sure whether this ["Exxon"] can be said to be a "work" at all; I am clearly of the opinion that it cannot be said to be a 'literary work'. (en)
|
Cases cited
| - Hollinrake v Truswell, [1894] 3 Ch. 420 (en)
- DP Anderson & Co Ltd v Lieber Code Co, [1917] 2 K.B. 469 (en)
|
date decided
| |
Legislation cited
| - Companies Act 1948 s.18 (en)
- Copyright Act 1842 (en)
- Copyright Act 1911 s.1 (en)
- Copyright Act 1911 s.35 (en)
- Copyright Act 1956 s.1 (en)
- Copyright Act 1956 s.17 (en)
- Copyright Act 1956 s.2 (en)
- Copyright Act 1956 s.48 (en)
- Copyright Act 1956 s.6 (en)
- Rules Supreme Court Ord.19 r.7 (en)
- Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.19 (en)
- Rules of the Supreme Court r.7 (en)
- Trade Marks Act 1919 (en)
- Trade Marks Act 1938 s.9 (en)
|
prior actions
| - 125 (xsd:integer)
- Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 624 (en)
- [1981] 2 All E.R. 495 (en)
- [1981] F.S.R. 238 (en)
|
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |