Tesco Stores Limited v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc (O/196/02)

Case details

Plaintiff: Tesco Stores Limited

Defendant: Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Case no.: O/196/02

Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

Industry: Food and Drink

Decision date: 10 May, 2002

Subject matter: RevocationDescriptive element

Decision

It was common ground between the parties that ROLLBACK was of American origin and that one of its meaning related to the roll back or reduction in prices charged for products. It was also accepted that the word was not well known in the UK at the relevant date - 19 February 1999 and it only became well known because of the extensive use and promotion of the applicant.

Comparison of Trademarks

ROLLBACK

ROLL BACK

Related cases

Tesco Stores Limited v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc (O/172/03)

Subject matter: Coexistence of trade marks, Enhanced distinctiveness, Likelihood of confusion, Similarity of goods and services, Similarity of the signs, Well known trade mark

Tesco Stores Limited v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc (O/584/01)

Subject matter: Revocation, Descriptive element

Meta versus Meta: Facebook faced with multiple lawsuits following their rebrand

Tech-giant formerly known as Facebook announced a rebrand and a change of its name to Meta. Following that, there were many discussions about whether a company as big as Facebook could even end up holding a complete monopoly over such generic word given hundreds of already existing trademarks in the same field of services. The results of these disputes will be decisive for the future of Meta.

Stories of our clients: ShyneDurags

“Our continual drive for excellence made us the best selling durag brand in the UK. Last year, we began trading on Amazon and found the marketplace to have a handful of rogue sellers who attempted to tarnish others’ brand reputation. This issue was quickly dealt with after trademark certifications were provided to Amazon.” Read the full story of Alvin Mills, the founder of ShyneDurags, who continues in his goal to create the #1 online destination for afro hair care.

Lindt secured another win for its chocolate bunny trademark in the EU

The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the gold-coloured foil-wrapped chocolate bunny from Lindt & Sprüngli can claim trademark protection against the competing product from Lidl. Lidl is no longer allowed to sell its rabbit because of the risk of confusion and must destroy existing copies of the product.