Westlaw UK Delivery Summary

Request made by: IPUserCP3389788159

IPUserCP3389788159
Request made on: Saturday, 03 November, 2007 at 09:47
GMT
Client ID: liv.8a9b5a00aac70000
Title: Berlei (UK) Ltd v Bali Brassiere Co Inc
(No.1)
Delivery selection: Current Document
Number of documents delivered: 1
2007 Sweet & Maxwell Limited
Status: Judicial Consideration or Case History Available

Berlei (UK) Ltd v Bali Brassiere Co Inc (No.1)

Also known as:
BALI Trade Mark (No.1)
House of Lords
06 May 1969

Case Analysis
Where Reported [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1306; [1969] 2 All E.R. 812; [1969] F.S.R. 288;
[1969] R.P.C. 472; (1969) 113 S.J. 720
Case Digest Subject: Intellectual property
Keywords: Pleadings; rectification; trade marks
Summary: Rectification; pleadings; not necessary
Abstract: Where A contends that B's trade mark ought to be
removed from the Register of Trade Marks on the grounds that "by
reason of its being likely to deceive or cause confusion or otherwise
[it would] be disentitled to protection in a court of justice" within the
Trade Marks Act 1938 s.11 , it is not necessary for A to establish
that A has a reasonable chance of success against B in a
passing-off action. A were the owners of a trade mark "Berlei" first
registered in 1924 and which had been continuously and extensively
used by them since 1930 in respect of the manufacture of
brassieres, corsets, corselettes, etc. Since 1938 B had held a
registration of a device including the word "Bali" which was used in
respect of brassieres, corsets and corselettes. In 1959 B (an
American company) applied for registration of the name "Bali" in
respect of these garments. A immediately objected; they also sought
rectification of the register under s.32 by removal of the registered
device on the grounds that it offended against s.11 of the 1938 Act.
Evidence as to confusion and as to lack of confusion was adduced
by A and B respectively; the Assistant Comptroller of Trade Marks
decided in favour of A, as did the judge on appeal. The Court of
Appeal, however, allowed B's appeal ([1968] F.S.R. 1).
Held, allowing A's appeal, (1) that there was evidence, notably the
phonetic similarity of the two names, of the likelihood of deception or
confusion and (2) that it was not necessary for A to establish a
reasonable chance of success in a passing-off action (dictum of
Buckley, J. in TRANSFERMATIC Trade Mark [1966] F.S.R. 192
considered).
Judge: Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest; Lord Guest; Lord Upjohn; Lord
Wilberforce; Lord Pearson
Appellate History Chancery Division
Berlei (UK) Ltd v Bali Brassiere Co Inc (No.1)

[1966] F.S.R. 8; [1966] R.P.C. 387

Reversed by
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1

Berlei (UK) Ltd v Bali Brassiere Co Inc (No.1)

[1968] F.S.R. 1; [1968] R.P.C. 426
Reversed by
House of Lords
Berlei (UK) Ltd v Bali Brassiere Co Inc (No.1)
[1969] 1 W.L.R. 1306; [1969] 2 All E.R. 812; [1969] F.S.R. 288;
[1969] R.P.C. 472; (1969) 113 S.J. 720
Significant Cases Cited TRANSFERMATIC Trade Mark
[1966] F.S.R. 192; [1966] R.P.C. 568; (1966) 110 S.J. 564; (Ch D)
Cases Citing This Case Applied by
ELLE Trade Marks (Opposition)
[2000] E.T.M.R. 311; (Ch D)
Jaguar Cars Ltd v Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
[2006] E.T.M.R. 72; (HC (Irl))
North Shore Toy Co v Charles L Stevenson Ltd
[1974] R.P.C. 545; (Sup Ct (NZ))
PRESTO ELLE and ELLE Trade Marks
Unreported; (Ch D)
Perfetti SpA v Warner Lambert Co
[1999] C.L.Y. 3537; (CA (Civ Div))
Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Co v Hy-Line Chicks Pty Ltd
[1976] R.P.C. 294; [1975] 2 N.Z.L.R. 422; (Sup Ct (NZ))
ST Dupont v EI du Pont de Nemours & Co
[2003] EWCA Civ 1368; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 2793; [2006] C.P. Rep. 25;
[2004] F.S.R. 15; (2004) 27(2) I.P.D. 27009; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B.
1207; (CA (Civ Div))
SWISS MISS Trade Mark
[1997] R.P.C. 219; (1997) 20(2) I.P.D. 20011; (Ch D)
Yuen v McDonald's Corp
Daily Telegraph, December 6, 2001; (Ch D)
Followed by
ETERNITY Trade Mark
[1997] R.P.C. 155; (TMR)
JOCKEY Trade Mark
[1994] F.S.R. 269; (TMR)
OPEN COUNTRY Trade Mark
[2000] E.T.M.R. 942 (Note); [2000] R.P.C. 477; (2000) 23(3) I.P.D.
23023; (CA (Civ Div))
Sprints Ltd v Comptroller of Customs (Mauritius)
[2000] F.S.R. 814; (PC (Mau))
Thrift Rent-a-Car System Inc v Thrift Rent-a-Car Sdn Bhd
[2005] F.S.R. 11; (HC (Mal))
Considered by
CABANAS HABANA (Device) Trade Mark
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 2

[2000] R.P.C. 26; (TMR)

General Electric Co Ltd (USA) v General Electric Co Ltd
[1972] 1 W.L.R. 729; [1972] 2 All E.R. 507; [1972] F.S.R. 225;
[1973] R.P.C. 297; (1972) 116 S.J. 412; (HL)
INADINE Trade Mark
[1992] R.P.C. 421; (Ch D)
International Telesis Group Service Mark

[1996] R.P.C. 45; (TMR)

NUCLEUS Trade Mark
[1998] R.P.C. 233; (TMR)
OPEN COUNTRY Trade Mark
[1998] R.P.C. 408; (1998) 21(4) I.P.D. 21043; (Ch D)
SAVILE ROW Trade Mark
[1998] R.P.C. 155; (TMR)
Legislation Cited Patents Designs and Trade Marks Act 1888 s.15
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act 1883 s.73
Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act 1888 s.15
Registration of Trade Marks Act 1875 s.6
Trade Marks (Amendment) Act 1937
Trade Marks Act 1905 s.11
Trade Marks Act 1905 s.19
Trade Marks Act 1905 s.21
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.73
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.2
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.11
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.12
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.12(1)
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.12(2)
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.13
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.13(1)(b)
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.26
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.32
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.32(1)
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.46
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.51
Trade Marks Act 1938 (c.22) s.52
Trade Marks Amendment Act 1937 s.6
Journal Articles Trade mark law - the Supreme Court considers the sufficiency
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 3

of proof of confusion
Confusion; Ireland; Registration; Trade marks.
D.U.L.J. 2001, 23, 218-225
2007 Sweet & Maxwell Ltd

FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 4