ROTHMANS OF PALL MALL LIMITED V. INDEPENDENT TOBACCO FZE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The only question in this appeal and indeed before the court below is whether the names “ROTHMANS · ROYALS” and “BUSINESS ROYALS” are identical or so nearly resemble each other as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion; or whether the description of BUSINESS ROYALS products are identical with or nearly resemble those of ROTHMANS · ROYALS. The answer to the two related questions lies in the construction of sections 14 and 15(1) of the Trademarks Act, which prescribe, respectively that;

“14. No person shall register as a trade mark or part of a trade mark any matter the use of which would, by reason of its being likely to deceive or cause confusion or otherwise, be disentitled to protection in a court of justice, or would be contrary to law or morality, or any scandalous design.

15 . (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), no trade mark shall be registered in respect of any goods or description of goods that is identical with or nearly resembles a mark be…