Indeed the question of "sign" is an issue that occupies the minds of teh court and all those involved.
However arguably a sign doesn't have to be visable to humans. It can be heard (on the radio for example) and that should count and I think that, in teh right circumstances, the fact that it could be viewed electronically could be found to be sufficient.
Also under section 10(1) of teh Act there is no need for confusion - just use of an identical mark for identiocal goods or services.
Where there is similarity only then confusion is an issue and this is where i think there is greater difficulty for enforcement.
Indeed the question of
Indeed the question of "sign" is an issue that occupies the minds of teh court and all those involved.
However arguably a sign doesn't have to be visable to humans. It can be heard (on the radio for example) and that should count and I think that, in teh right circumstances, the fact that it could be viewed electronically could be found to be sufficient.
Also under section 10(1) of teh Act there is no need for confusion - just use of an identical mark for identiocal goods or services.
Where there is similarity only then confusion is an issue and this is where i think there is greater difficulty for enforcement.
"walk tall, speak softly but carry a big stick"