Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
|
Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response. |
|
 |
Internet domain name protection - use of similar address to well know domain name - protection for passing off
Trade Mark Merchandise Act (India)
YI, a well known internet service provider, was the proprietor of 69 trade marks worldwide for the mark YAHOO! and had a pending application application in India. YI sought a temporary injunction against AA, restraining it from using the domain name YAHOOINDIA.COM, claiming that AA was passing off its services and goods as those of YI. A domain name, YI submitted, was entitled equal protection from passing off as that afforded to trade marks. AA contended that 1) there could be no passing of YI's services because the service rendered by them could not be said to be goods within the meaning of the Trade Marks Merchandise Act (India), which only dealt with goods and not services, and 2) Yahoo was a dictionary word which was not distinctive and since AA has been using a disclaimer there could be no chance of deception and therefore no passing off.
Held: granting the temporary injunction, that 1) there were several cases where services had been included with the scope of passing off. Accordingly, services rendered had come to be recognised for an action in passing off, Reddaway v . Banham [1896] AC 199, Ellora Industries v. Banarsi Dass & Ors [1981] PTC 46 considered; 2) a domain name served the same function as a trade mark and was entitled to equal protection as a trade mark. Cardservice International Inc v. McGee 42 USPQ 2d 1850 considered; 3) the two marks were identical, save for the word INDIA, and there was every possibility of an Internet user being confused that both domain names came from a common source. This was particularly so since YI itself had used regional names after the word YAHOO; 4) the disclaimer used by AA was of no relevance because, due to the nature of Internet use, AA's appropriation of YI's mark as a domain name and home page address could not be adequately communicated by a disclaimer, and 5) dictionary words could attract distinctiveness.
Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora [1999] FSR 931
"Current Law"
|
|
Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
|
Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
|
Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
|
Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject. |
|
