The trademark law in several jurisdictions allows the trademark of an honest and concurrent user to coexist with another similar mark. In fact the defence of honest concurrent users came into being through Dent vs. Turpin which determined that two users of a mark (which had derived from a common predecessor) had a separate right to obtain an injunction against a third person using the mark. The case was the first to come up with such a relevant law and the subsequent case laws adopted the same rule.
For instance in Southorn v. Reynolds (1865) 12 LT 75, the Dent vs. Turpin case was relied on to come to a conclusion on a very similar fact where the court again emphasized on restraining a person from misrepresenting his goods as those of another.
The facts of the case Dent vs. Turpin are as follows - Father Dent had two clock shops, one in the City and the other in the West end. He bequeathed one to each son which resulted in two clocks businesses each called Dent. Neither could stop the other from using the name however each could stop a third party by granting an injunction. In this case the defendant Turpin could be granted injunction from using “Dent” for such a business. Any consumer in the general public who only knows one of the businessmen would assume that the other part of it would be deceived. But still passing off would not lie for one son against the other because of the positive rights the other has with regard to his business. But it can lie against a third party is what was held in the case.
In John Fitton & Co (1949) 66 RPC 110, 112 (Reg) certain defenses were laid down for the honest and concurrent user
1. The extent of use in time and quantity and the area of the trade
2. The degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks which is to a large extent indicative of the measure of public inconvenience
3. Whether any instances of confusion have in fact been proved, and
4. The relative inconvenience which would be caused if the mark were registered, subject if necessary to any conditions and limitations.
Q. What is the meaning of honest concurrent users as per the paragraph above?
  • a)
    Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users restraining any third party from using the same.
  • b)
    Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users but they cannot restrain any third party from using the same.
  • c)
    Where a similar mark of a good is used by any number of people.
  • d)
    Which similar mark is used by multiple people to represent different types of goods.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Related Test: CLAT Mock Test- 16

CLAT Question

Notes Wala
Aug 15, 2021
The definition of honest and concurrent users is given in the first paragraph.

This discussion on The trademark law in several jurisdictions allows the trademark of an honest and concurrent user to coexist with another similar mark. In fact the defence of honest concurrent users came into being through Dent vs. Turpin which determined that two users of a mark (which had derived from a common predecessor) had a separate right to obtain an injunction against a third person using the mark. The case was the first to come up with such a relevant law and the subsequent case laws adopted the same rule.For instance in Southorn v. Reynolds (1865) 12 LT 75, the Dent vs. Turpin case was relied on to come to a conclusion on a very similar fact where the court again emphasized on restraining a person from misrepresenting his goods as those of another.The facts of the case Dent vs. Turpin are as follows - Father Dent had two clock shops, one in the City and the other in the West end. He bequeathed one to each son which resulted in two clocks businesses each called Dent. Neither could stop the other from using the name however each could stop a third party by granting an injunction. In this case the defendant Turpin could be granted injunction from using “Dent” for such a business. Any consumer in the general public who only knows one of the businessmen would assume that the other part of it would be deceived. But still passing off would not lie for one son against the other because of the positive rights the other has with regard to his business. But it can lie against a third party is what was held in the case.In John Fitton & Co (1949) 66 RPC 110, 112 (Reg) certain defenses were laid down for the honest and concurrent user1. The extent of use in time and quantity and the area of the trade2. The degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks which is to a large extent indicative of the measure of public inconvenience3. Whether any instances of confusion have in fact been proved, and4. The relative inconvenience which would be caused if the mark were registered, subject if necessary to any conditions and limitations.Q. What is the meaning of honest concurrent users as per the paragraph above?a)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users restraining any third party from using the same.b)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users but they cannot restrain any third party from using the same.c)Where a similar mark of a good is used by any number of people.d)Which similar mark is used by multiple people to represent different types of goods.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? is done on EduRev Study Group by CLAT Students. The Questions and Answers of The trademark law in several jurisdictions allows the trademark of an honest and concurrent user to coexist with another similar mark. In fact the defence of honest concurrent users came into being through Dent vs. Turpin which determined that two users of a mark (which had derived from a common predecessor) had a separate right to obtain an injunction against a third person using the mark. The case was the first to come up with such a relevant law and the subsequent case laws adopted the same rule.For instance in Southorn v. Reynolds (1865) 12 LT 75, the Dent vs. Turpin case was relied on to come to a conclusion on a very similar fact where the court again emphasized on restraining a person from misrepresenting his goods as those of another.The facts of the case Dent vs. Turpin are as follows - Father Dent had two clock shops, one in the City and the other in the West end. He bequeathed one to each son which resulted in two clocks businesses each called Dent. Neither could stop the other from using the name however each could stop a third party by granting an injunction. In this case the defendant Turpin could be granted injunction from using “Dent” for such a business. Any consumer in the general public who only knows one of the businessmen would assume that the other part of it would be deceived. But still passing off would not lie for one son against the other because of the positive rights the other has with regard to his business. But it can lie against a third party is what was held in the case.In John Fitton & Co (1949) 66 RPC 110, 112 (Reg) certain defenses were laid down for the honest and concurrent user1. The extent of use in time and quantity and the area of the trade2. The degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks which is to a large extent indicative of the measure of public inconvenience3. Whether any instances of confusion have in fact been proved, and4. The relative inconvenience which would be caused if the mark were registered, subject if necessary to any conditions and limitations.Q. What is the meaning of honest concurrent users as per the paragraph above?a)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users restraining any third party from using the same.b)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users but they cannot restrain any third party from using the same.c)Where a similar mark of a good is used by any number of people.d)Which similar mark is used by multiple people to represent different types of goods.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? are solved by group of students and teacher of CLAT, which is also the largest student community of CLAT. If the answer is not available please wait for a while and a community member will probably answer this soon. You can study other questions, MCQs, videos and tests for CLAT on EduRev and even discuss your questions like The trademark law in several jurisdictions allows the trademark of an honest and concurrent user to coexist with another similar mark. In fact the defence of honest concurrent users came into being through Dent vs. Turpin which determined that two users of a mark (which had derived from a common predecessor) had a separate right to obtain an injunction against a third person using the mark. The case was the first to come up with such a relevant law and the subsequent case laws adopted the same rule.For instance in Southorn v. Reynolds (1865) 12 LT 75, the Dent vs. Turpin case was relied on to come to a conclusion on a very similar fact where the court again emphasized on restraining a person from misrepresenting his goods as those of another.The facts of the case Dent vs. Turpin are as follows - Father Dent had two clock shops, one in the City and the other in the West end. He bequeathed one to each son which resulted in two clocks businesses each called Dent. Neither could stop the other from using the name however each could stop a third party by granting an injunction. In this case the defendant Turpin could be granted injunction from using “Dent” for such a business. Any consumer in the general public who only knows one of the businessmen would assume that the other part of it would be deceived. But still passing off would not lie for one son against the other because of the positive rights the other has with regard to his business. But it can lie against a third party is what was held in the case.In John Fitton & Co (1949) 66 RPC 110, 112 (Reg) certain defenses were laid down for the honest and concurrent user1. The extent of use in time and quantity and the area of the trade2. The degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks which is to a large extent indicative of the measure of public inconvenience3. Whether any instances of confusion have in fact been proved, and4. The relative inconvenience which would be caused if the mark were registered, subject if necessary to any conditions and limitations.Q. What is the meaning of honest concurrent users as per the paragraph above?a)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users restraining any third party from using the same.b)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users but they cannot restrain any third party from using the same.c)Where a similar mark of a good is used by any number of people.d)Which similar mark is used by multiple people to represent different types of goods.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? over here on EduRev! Apart from being the largest CLAT community, EduRev has the largest solved Question bank for CLAT.
This discussion on The trademark law in several jurisdictions allows the trademark of an honest and concurrent user to coexist with another similar mark. In fact the defence of honest concurrent users came into being through Dent vs. Turpin which determined that two users of a mark (which had derived from a common predecessor) had a separate right to obtain an injunction against a third person using the mark. The case was the first to come up with such a relevant law and the subsequent case laws adopted the same rule.For instance in Southorn v. Reynolds (1865) 12 LT 75, the Dent vs. Turpin case was relied on to come to a conclusion on a very similar fact where the court again emphasized on restraining a person from misrepresenting his goods as those of another.The facts of the case Dent vs. Turpin are as follows - Father Dent had two clock shops, one in the City and the other in the West end. He bequeathed one to each son which resulted in two clocks businesses each called Dent. Neither could stop the other from using the name however each could stop a third party by granting an injunction. In this case the defendant Turpin could be granted injunction from using “Dent” for such a business. Any consumer in the general public who only knows one of the businessmen would assume that the other part of it would be deceived. But still passing off would not lie for one son against the other because of the positive rights the other has with regard to his business. But it can lie against a third party is what was held in the case.In John Fitton & Co (1949) 66 RPC 110, 112 (Reg) certain defenses were laid down for the honest and concurrent user1. The extent of use in time and quantity and the area of the trade2. The degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks which is to a large extent indicative of the measure of public inconvenience3. Whether any instances of confusion have in fact been proved, and4. The relative inconvenience which would be caused if the mark were registered, subject if necessary to any conditions and limitations.Q. What is the meaning of honest concurrent users as per the paragraph above?a)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users restraining any third party from using the same.b)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users but they cannot restrain any third party from using the same.c)Where a similar mark of a good is used by any number of people.d)Which similar mark is used by multiple people to represent different types of goods.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? is done on EduRev Study Group by CLAT Students. The Questions and Answers of The trademark law in several jurisdictions allows the trademark of an honest and concurrent user to coexist with another similar mark. In fact the defence of honest concurrent users came into being through Dent vs. Turpin which determined that two users of a mark (which had derived from a common predecessor) had a separate right to obtain an injunction against a third person using the mark. The case was the first to come up with such a relevant law and the subsequent case laws adopted the same rule.For instance in Southorn v. Reynolds (1865) 12 LT 75, the Dent vs. Turpin case was relied on to come to a conclusion on a very similar fact where the court again emphasized on restraining a person from misrepresenting his goods as those of another.The facts of the case Dent vs. Turpin are as follows - Father Dent had two clock shops, one in the City and the other in the West end. He bequeathed one to each son which resulted in two clocks businesses each called Dent. Neither could stop the other from using the name however each could stop a third party by granting an injunction. In this case the defendant Turpin could be granted injunction from using “Dent” for such a business. Any consumer in the general public who only knows one of the businessmen would assume that the other part of it would be deceived. But still passing off would not lie for one son against the other because of the positive rights the other has with regard to his business. But it can lie against a third party is what was held in the case.In John Fitton & Co (1949) 66 RPC 110, 112 (Reg) certain defenses were laid down for the honest and concurrent user1. The extent of use in time and quantity and the area of the trade2. The degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks which is to a large extent indicative of the measure of public inconvenience3. Whether any instances of confusion have in fact been proved, and4. The relative inconvenience which would be caused if the mark were registered, subject if necessary to any conditions and limitations.Q. What is the meaning of honest concurrent users as per the paragraph above?a)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users restraining any third party from using the same.b)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users but they cannot restrain any third party from using the same.c)Where a similar mark of a good is used by any number of people.d)Which similar mark is used by multiple people to represent different types of goods.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? are solved by group of students and teacher of CLAT, which is also the largest student community of CLAT. If the answer is not available please wait for a while and a community member will probably answer this soon. You can study other questions, MCQs, videos and tests for CLAT on EduRev and even discuss your questions like The trademark law in several jurisdictions allows the trademark of an honest and concurrent user to coexist with another similar mark. In fact the defence of honest concurrent users came into being through Dent vs. Turpin which determined that two users of a mark (which had derived from a common predecessor) had a separate right to obtain an injunction against a third person using the mark. The case was the first to come up with such a relevant law and the subsequent case laws adopted the same rule.For instance in Southorn v. Reynolds (1865) 12 LT 75, the Dent vs. Turpin case was relied on to come to a conclusion on a very similar fact where the court again emphasized on restraining a person from misrepresenting his goods as those of another.The facts of the case Dent vs. Turpin are as follows - Father Dent had two clock shops, one in the City and the other in the West end. He bequeathed one to each son which resulted in two clocks businesses each called Dent. Neither could stop the other from using the name however each could stop a third party by granting an injunction. In this case the defendant Turpin could be granted injunction from using “Dent” for such a business. Any consumer in the general public who only knows one of the businessmen would assume that the other part of it would be deceived. But still passing off would not lie for one son against the other because of the positive rights the other has with regard to his business. But it can lie against a third party is what was held in the case.In John Fitton & Co (1949) 66 RPC 110, 112 (Reg) certain defenses were laid down for the honest and concurrent user1. The extent of use in time and quantity and the area of the trade2. The degree of confusion likely to ensue from the resemblance of the marks which is to a large extent indicative of the measure of public inconvenience3. Whether any instances of confusion have in fact been proved, and4. The relative inconvenience which would be caused if the mark were registered, subject if necessary to any conditions and limitations.Q. What is the meaning of honest concurrent users as per the paragraph above?a)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users restraining any third party from using the same.b)Where the right of a similar mark of a good can be shared between two users but they cannot restrain any third party from using the same.c)Where a similar mark of a good is used by any number of people.d)Which similar mark is used by multiple people to represent different types of goods.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? over here on EduRev! Apart from being the largest CLAT community, EduRev has the largest solved Question bank for CLAT.