A moron in a hurry is a phrase that has been used in legal cases, especially in the UK, involving trademark infringement and passing off. Where one party alleges that another (the defendant) has infringed their intellectual property rights by offering for sale a product that is confusably similar to their own, the court has to decide whether a reasonable person would be misled by the defendant's trademark or the get-up of their product. It has been held that "if only a moron in a hurry would be misled" the case is not made out.[1] Although this formulation addresses only fairly extreme instances of confusibility, and says nothing about less clear examples, the phrase is sometimes referred to as a "test".[2]
The phrase was first used by Mr Justice Foster in the 1978 English High Court case Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Limited [1979] FSR 113, in which the publishers of the Morning Star, a British Communist Party publication, sought an injunction to prevent Express Newspapers from launching a new tabloid to be called the Daily Star.[3] The judge ruled against the Morning Star, noting that, "If one puts the two papers side by side I for myself would find that the two papers are so different in every way that only a moron in a hurry would be misled."[3]
Later examplesedit
The phrase was quoted in the same context in Newsweek Inc. v British Broadcasting Corp. [1979] R.P.C. 441 by Lord Denning.[4][5][6]
In 2006 the phrase was used in legal argument in the case of Apple Corps v Apple Computer, between Apple Corps (the record label started by the Beatles in 1968) and Apple Computer Inc. (makers of Macintosh computers). Apple Computer argued that "[e]ven a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about" the difference between iTunes and the Apple Corps record label. Apple Corps' logo was a green Granny Smith apple, whereas Apple Computer's logo was a "cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side".[7] Judgment was given in favour of Apple Computer Inc.
Canadaedit
In Canada the phrase was first considered in C.M.S. Industries Ltd. v. UAP Inc. (2002 SKQB 303), where the court held that UAP had infringed the plaintiff's trademark.[8] Four years later, in Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada moved away from the "moron" analysis, adopting in its place consideration of an "ordinary hurried purchaser", a standard between that of a "moron" and a "careful and diligent purchaser".[9]Mattel is now the standard in Canada.
Pakistanedit
In 2017 the Sindh High Court used the "moron in a hurry" test as one of several approaches to compare competing syrup drink products. The plaintiff, owner of the well known ROOH AFZA trademark, sued a company who had started selling a very similar product under the mark ROOH-E-SAMAR. The court held that the respective marks were similar, and that a less than prudent customer would undoubtedly be deceived given the minute differences between the colour of the band and the placement of fruits on the respective wrappers.[2]
^Cornish, W. R. (1989). Intellectual property : Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks, and Allied Rights (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 415, note 88. ISBN0-421-37980-4. OCLC 24212824.
^ abManssor, Seema S (31 July 2017). "High court uses 'moron in a hurry', Lapp and classic trinity tests to decide trademark infringement case". Lexology. from the original on 4 January 2022. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
^ abMiller, Jeffrey (2003). Where There's Life, There's Lawsuits. ECW Press. pp. 125–126. ISBN978-1-55022-501-3. Retrieved 18 February 2014.
^"Newsweek Inc. v British Broadcasting Corporation". Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases. 96 (20). Oxford University Press for the Intellectual Property Office: 441–9. 1979. doi:10.1093/rpc/1979rpc441. ISSN 1756-1000.(subscription required)
^High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (1 January 1979). "Newsweek Inc. v. British Broadcasting Corporation". Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases. 96 (20): 441–449. doi:10.1093/rpc/1979rpc441. ISSN 0080-1364.
^Choo, Han Teck (18 January 2002). . www.singaporelaw.sg. Archived from the original on 13 September 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
^Associated Press (31 March 2006). "Apple Defends Its Use of Logo on iTunes Store". The New York Times.
^"C.M.S. Industries Ltd. v. UAP Inc., SKQB 303 (CanLII) 2002". 22 July 2002. Archived from the original on 18 February 2014. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
^"Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22, [2006] 1 SCR 772". 2006. Retrieved 17 February 2014.
^Anderson, Nate (30 September 2009). "Memes strike back: Gerbils, gay blood elves, and Glenn Beck". Ars Technica.
April 13, 2024
moron, hurry, phrase, that, been, used, legal, cases, especially, involving, trademark, infringement, passing, where, party, alleges, that, another, defendant, infringed, their, intellectual, property, rights, offering, sale, product, that, confusably, similar. A moron in a hurry is a phrase that has been used in legal cases especially in the UK involving trademark infringement and passing off Where one party alleges that another the defendant has infringed their intellectual property rights by offering for sale a product that is confusably similar to their own the court has to decide whether a reasonable person would be misled by the defendant s trademark or the get up of their product It has been held that if only a moron in a hurry would be misled the case is not made out 1 Although this formulation addresses only fairly extreme instances of confusibility and says nothing about less clear examples the phrase is sometimes referred to as a test 2 Contents 1 UK 1 1 Origin 1 2 Later examples 2 Canada 3 Pakistan 4 United States 5 See also 6 ReferencesUK editOrigin edit The phrase was first used by Mr Justice Foster in the 1978 English High Court case Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Limited 1979 FSR 113 in which the publishers of the Morning Star a British Communist Party publication sought an injunction to prevent Express Newspapers from launching a new tabloid to be called the Daily Star 3 The judge ruled against the Morning Star noting that If one puts the two papers side by side I for myself would find that the two papers are so different in every way that only a moron in a hurry would be misled 3 Later examples edit The phrase was quoted in the same context in Newsweek Inc v British Broadcasting Corp 1979 R P C 441 by Lord Denning 4 5 6 In 2006 the phrase was used in legal argument in the case of Apple Corps v Apple Computer between Apple Corps the record label started by the Beatles in 1968 and Apple Computer Inc makers of Macintosh computers Apple Computer argued that e ven a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about the difference between iTunes and the Apple Corps record label Apple Corps logo was a green Granny Smith apple whereas Apple Computer s logo was a cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side 7 Judgment was given in favour of Apple Computer Inc Canada editIn Canada the phrase was first considered in C M S Industries Ltd v UAP Inc 2002 SKQB 303 where the court held that UAP had infringed the plaintiff s trademark 8 Four years later in Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc the Supreme Court of Canada moved away from the moron analysis adopting in its place consideration of an ordinary hurried purchaser a standard between that of a moron and a careful and diligent purchaser 9 Mattel is now the standard in Canada Pakistan editIn 2017 the Sindh High Court used the moron in a hurry test as one of several approaches to compare competing syrup drink products The plaintiff owner of the well known ROOH AFZA trademark sued a company who had started selling a very similar product under the mark ROOH E SAMAR The court held that the respective marks were similar and that a less than prudent customer would undoubtedly be deceived given the minute differences between the colour of the band and the placement of fruits on the respective wrappers 2 United States editAttorney Marc J Randazza used the phrase as part of his defence in Beck v Eiland Hall for his client s use of Glenn Beck s name in a parody website 10 See also editMan on the Clapham omnibus Reasonable person Reasonable man Passing offReferences edit Cornish W R 1989 Intellectual property Patents Copyright Trade Marks and Allied Rights 2nd ed London Sweet amp Maxwell pp 415 note 88 ISBN 0 421 37980 4 OCLC 24212824 a b Manssor Seema S 31 July 2017 High court uses moron in a hurry Lapp and classic trinity tests to decide trademark infringement case Lexology Archived from the original on 4 January 2022 Retrieved 4 January 2022 a b Miller Jeffrey 2003 Where There s Life There s Lawsuits ECW Press pp 125 126 ISBN 978 1 55022 501 3 Retrieved 18 February 2014 Newsweek Inc v British Broadcasting Corporation Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases 96 20 Oxford University Press for the Intellectual Property Office 441 9 1979 doi 10 1093 rpc 1979rpc441 ISSN 1756 1000 subscription required High Court of Justice Chancery Division 1 January 1979 Newsweek Inc v British Broadcasting Corporation Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases 96 20 441 449 doi 10 1093 rpc 1979rpc441 ISSN 0080 1364 Choo Han Teck 18 January 2002 The Polo Lauren Company L P v United States Polo Association www singaporelaw sg Archived from the original on 13 September 2017 Retrieved 13 September 2017 Associated Press 31 March 2006 Apple Defends Its Use of Logo on iTunes Store The New York Times C M S Industries Ltd v UAP Inc SKQB 303 CanLII 2002 22 July 2002 Archived from the original on 18 February 2014 Retrieved 17 February 2014 Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc 2006 SCC 22 2006 1 SCR 772 2006 Retrieved 17 February 2014 Anderson Nate 30 September 2009 Memes strike back Gerbils gay blood elves and Glenn Beck Ars Technica Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title A moron in a hurry amp oldid 1192172854, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
