Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd
 | This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations, which can be found through legal research. Unsourced or poorly sourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008) |
| Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Decided | 12 June 1981 |
| Citations | [1982] Ch. 119 [1981] 3 All E.R. 241 [1982] R.P.C. 69 (1981) 125 S.J. 527 Times, June 13, 1981 |
| Cases cited | DP Anderson & Co Ltd v Lieber Code Co, [1917] 2 K.B. 469 (KBD) Hollinrake v Truswell, [1894] 3 Ch. 420 (CA) |
| Legislation cited | Companies Act 1948 s.18 Companies Act 1948 s.18(1) Copyright Act 1956 s.1 Copyright Act 1956 s.2 Copyright Act 1956 s.2(1) Copyright Act 1956 s.6 Copyright Act 1956 s.17 Copyright Act 1956 s.48 Copyright Act 1911 s.1 Copyright Act 1911 s.1(1) Copyright Act 1911 s.35 Copyright Act 1842 Trade Marks Act 1938 s.9 Trade Marks Act 1938 s.9(1)(c) Trade Marks Act 1919 Rules of the Supreme Court Ord.19 Rules Supreme Court Ord.19 r.7 Rules of the Supreme Court r.7 |
| Case history | |
| Prior actions | Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd, [1981] 1 W.L.R. 624 [1981] 2 All E.R. 495 [1981] F.S.R. 238 (1981) 125 S.J. 342 (Ch D) |
| Subsequent action | None |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Stephenson, L.J. Sir David Cairns, L.J. Oliver, L.J. |
| Keywords | |
| Literary works, Trade names | |
Exxon Corp. v. Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch. 119 is a leading decision in English law on the existence of copyright in a name alone and the infringement of a trade mark. The Court found that typically there is no copyright in a name, invented or otherwise, and that a trade mark can only be infringed when there the infringing party shares part of the market segment.[citation needed]
Copyright
Exxon took the position that there is copyright in the word "Exxon" for two reasons. First, because they put considerable time and energy into the development of the name, and second, as there was a significant investment into creating the name it was an "original literary work". Further, they argued that size of a literary work does not matter.[citation needed]
The Court found that the name Exxon, while a trade mark, is only a word and as such is not capable of copyright protection. A word alone does not convey any information beyond its dictionary meaning and thus cannot be a literary work. Furthermore, allowing copyright in single words would overlap trademark law entirely and would make use of the word in public troublesome.[citation needed]
Trade mark
With regards to the trade mark, the Court found that the use of this word by the defendants who work in a field that in no way shares a market segment with the plaintiff in no way dilutes the plaintiff's brand name nor infringes on its trade mark.[citation needed]