Friday, 6 September 2013 02:59
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
By S.S. Selvanayagam
The Colombo Commercial High Court in its judgment dismissed the Appeal filed by Singapore-based Crocodile International Ltd., challenging the refusal of its registration of the trademark consisting of the word “Crocodile”.
High Court Judge E.A.G.R. Amarasekera dismissed the Appeal in view of the fact that the Director General of Intellectual Property had sufficiently and reasonably analysed the relevant provisions and come to the conclusions to refuse its registration.
Crocodile International Ltd. in its appeal cited France-based La Coste and Director General of Intellectual Property as Respondents.
Dinal Phillips with Ranil Prematilake instructed by Varnes appeared for the Petitioner while Nihal Fernando PC with Ruchira Anthony instructed by Sudath Perera Associates appeared for La Coste and Attorney General for the Director General of Intellectual Property.
La Coste’s right-facing logo and Crocodile’s left-facing logo are very similar. The brand La Coste was born and the familiar crocodile crest became a fashion icon.
By order dated 26 March 2010, the Director General of Intellectual Property upheld the objections of La Coste and refused the registration of Petitioner Crocodile’s mark costing of the word “Crocodile” in respect of several goods such as goods made of leather, imitations of leather or combination thereof, travelling bags, travelling sets, luggage and travelling trunks, etc.
Being aggrieved by the said order of the Director General of Intellectual Property, the Petitioner Crocodile preferred an Appeal to the High Court.
The Court observed the Petitioner Crocodile is trying to remedy its mistakes and failures in the inquiry before the Director General by attaching affidavit evidence and new documentary evidence to its Written Submissions.
The Court was of the view that the Court sitting in Appeal should not use its inherent powers or provisions of the Intellectual Property Act in a manner that allows a party to remedy its own failures, negligence and mistakes that took place during the inquiry before the Director General.
