< Back to latest news & events

News

Trump International loses High Court trade mark appeal

April 2019

Trump International Limited. v. DTTM Operations LLC v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2019] EWHC 769 (Ch). The High Court of Justice has upheld a UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) decision in relation to a trade mark for “TRUMP TV” filed in bad faith.

Bad Faith

As set out in section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 – “A trade mark shall not be registered if or to the extent that the application is made in bad faith”.

A trade mark application may be considered to have been filed in “bad faith” if the applicant had no intention of using the trade mark to distinguish its goods from those of other traders. Marks filed as blocking strategies or to demand money from the rightful IP owners can be considered “bad faith” applications.

IPO Decision

In October 2016, an application for the mark “TRUMP TV” in classes 38 (for among other things telecommunication services) and 41 (for the production of radio and TV shows and more) was filed by businessman Michael Gleissner, in the name of “Trump International Limited”. The mark was opposed by DTTM Operations LLC, who manage the intellectual property rights for Donald Trump.

DTTM Operations LLC was successful on the grounds of bad faith, with Trump International being ordered to pay costs of £15,100. In the words of the UKIPO Hearing Officer, the conduct of Michael Gleissner / Trump International in previous matters illustrated;

“a flagrant degree of cynicism on the part of the Applicant, where other related companies have demonstrated a pattern of similar behaviour…….In considering whether off-scale costs are here warranted, I particularly bear in mind the well-evidenced pattern of abusive behaviour on the part of Mr Gleissner and his related companies as shown, for example, in the Apple cases referenced above – which decisions were published well in advance of the current opposition.”

High Court Appeal

The decision was appealed by Trump International who argued that the hearing officer “erred in law or in principle in failing to make any findings in relation to the other grounds of opposition” (that he had purchased the domain names ‘trump.org’ and ‘trump.tv’ in 2017, claiming they were to be used for a satirical website’), and that evidence of third parties (such as articles from the ‘World Trade mark Review’, in the words of the UKIPO –  “a prominent trade publication for the trade mark attorney profession”) had been relied upon that damaged the personal reputation of the appellant – in particular that articles were adduced implying a pattern of bad faith filing on the part of Trump International.

The appeal was dismissed, with The Hon Mr Justice Henry Carr addressing the bad faith nature of the application;

“Mr Gleissner’s assertion of an intention to use the mark is, in my judgment, not credible……the evidence gives no details as to how the business would operate, how revenue would be generated, what markets and demographic would be addressed, nor in what geographical regions or on what platforms the service would operate. Nothing is said about when the planned business was or would be launched.”

Comment

An interesting fact of this case was that evidence demonstrating a pattern of bad faith was allowed by the UKIPO to demonstrate that the current filing by the applicant had been applied for in bad faith.

Clients should therefore be mindful of the possibility that multiple applications rejected on the grounds of bad faith may begin to count against them when filing future applications, although of course the scale of the Applicant’s activities in the current case was extreme.

Trade mark attorneys at HGF work hard to ensure that all clients are given detailed advice to ensure they are fully aware of the potential outcomes and ramifications of any trade mark applications.

Link to 2016 IPO Decision –  https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o40918.pdf.

This update was prepared by HGF IP Solicitor Chris Robsinon.  If you would like further advice on this or any other matter, please contact Chris.  Alternatively, you can contact your usual HGF representative or visit our Contact page to get in touch with your nearest HGF office.

Latest updates

IP Ingredients, Part 15: How and when to use trade secrets to protect your food or drink innovations

Some of the food and drink industry’s most successful products are protected as trade secrets: the recipes for Coca Cola, Heinz ketchup and Krispy Kreme donuts to name just a …

Read article
Event - 11th June 2024

HGF are proud sponsors of the Quantum Investors Network: LtW Summit.

The Quantum Investors Network: LtW Summit will be held in London on 11th June 2024, where Matt Cassie will be speaking on the panel ‘Talent, IP, Standards: moats – past …

Event details

IAM Patent 1000 2024

The IAM Patent 1000 World Leading Patent Professionals 2024 has been published and we have received another fantastic result with 31 of our attorneys being recognised as world-class individuals. As …

Read article

Romania will become 18th country to participate in the UPC and UP - EPO announce possibility to delay the registration of unitary effect

From 1 September 2024 Romania will become the 18th country to participate in the UPC following ratification of the UPC Agreement. This means that any Unitary Patents registered on or …

Read article

WTR Global Leaders 2024

The sixth edition of WTR Global Leaders has been published and we are proud to have four of our attorneys recognised and listed. The guide brings together the world’s foremost …

Read article

Managing Intellectual Property firm rankings - IP Stars 2024

We are pleased to announce that HGF has been prominently featured in the Managing IP Stars European rankings for 2024. Our firm’s continued excellence in the field of intellectual property …

Read article