Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:27:02.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade Marks and the Illiterate: A Critique of the Judicial Attitude

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

F. O. B. Babafemi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“To the trained eye of a civilised community there is undoubtedly a considerable difference in the two designs set side by side and the one would hardly be likely to be mistaken for the other, but while broad principles laid down in English cases should be applied, the trade marks laws in this country should be administered with regard to local conditions…with a view to protecting not only a vast illiterate population little acquainted with pictorial representations but also the pioneers of trade who have earned a reputation among these illiterate folk by the quality of goods associated with some recognised mark such as a particular bird, animal, tree or other object…”2

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1974 , pp. 180 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Per Webber, J., Maclver & Co. Ltd. v. C.F.A.O. (1917) 3 N.L.R. 18, at p.

3 1901, unreported.

4 1909, unreported.

5 In re A. Houtman & Co., 1912; Trade and customs laws, 1934 ed., 448.

page 181 note 1 1912, unreported.

page 181 note 2 (1917) 3 N.L.R. 18.

page 181 note 3 See, for example, John Walkden & Co. Ltd. v. Oshodi & Radcliffe Ltd. (1923) 4 N.L.R. 105; G. B. Ollivant & Co. Ltd. v. John Christian & Co. (1925) 6 N.L.R. 102; Re Trade Marks Ordinance (1928) 8 N.L.R. 48; The United Kingdom Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Carreras Ltd. (1931) 16 N.L.R. 1; John Sinclair v. British American Tobacco Co. (1932) 11 N.L.R. 45; Henkes Distillery v. Netherlands Distilleries (1933) 11 N.L.R. 76; The Raleigh Cycle Company Ltd. v. Rufai Balogun Akintola & Co. unreported, M/34/63 decided 22nd April, 1965.

page 181 note 4 L.R., 14 Ch.D. 8.

page 182 note 1 (1896) 13 R.P.G. 681.

page 182 note 2 Unreported, S.G./459/1966; decided 1st November, 1968.