HOW THE TRADE MARKS ACT SHAPES UP TO PERPETUAL MONOPOLIES

Abstract

In British Sugar plc v. James Robertson & Sons Ltd. [1996] RPC 281, Jacob J. asked whether the 1994 Trade Marks Act enables “big business to buy ordinary words of the English language at comparatively little cost”. His answer was a resounding “no”. In Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products, 22 December 1997, he asks whether trade mark law, by conferring a perpetual monopoly, can interfere with the freedom to manufacture artefacts of a “desirable and good engineering design”. The educated reader might hazard that he would again answer in the negative. And so it transpires. The thrill of the chase is to see how Jacob J. interprets the Act to reach this conclusion.