Will the Minister explain section 25? It states:
"A person shall not be registered under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1963, after the commencement of this section by a name containing or consisting of the word "Caighdeán", or the word "Standard", or the initials "C.É." or "I.S." or by a name which so nearly resembles any such word or initials as to be likely to deceive."
The Deputy might as well ask me to explain the Greek alphabet. I am advised it is a standard requirement to avoid confusion.
It does not seem to have achieved its aim.
They are standard names and they should not be used to deceive. Section 25 provides that after the commencement of the section, a person shall not be registered under the registration of Business Names Act, 1963, by a name containing or consisting of the word "Caighdeán", or the word "Standard", or the initials "C.É." or "I.S." or by a name which so nearly resembles any such word or initials as to be likely to deceive. This is like the argument we had on the Trade Marks Act. If one was to purloin either of those words, it would be to misrepresent.
Is one not able to include the word "Standard" in anything? That is odd because the word "standard" is frequently used and is readily understood in that one sets a standard or one expects people to abide by standards. Can nobody use this word? One hears of a standard shoe shop or a standard dress shop.
That would not be a problem; we had the same discussion on the Trade Marks Act. It is only if it is calculated to or is likely to deceive. It is not a provision which will prevent the every day use of the word "standard" but if it is used in a manner which is likely to deceive and imply approval, that would be deception.
I take the Minister's point. However, a standard clothes shop or school books shop implies a unique quality solely attributable to that shop. This section could be misinterpreted. That it is in the 1961 Act does not make it correct. It is a sloppy section.
The point has been made. I do not know if more precise wording could be found or if it is necessary.
The section is not sloppy. I did not regard it as a particularly important section but Deputy O'Rourke has focused my attention on it. It is not fair to say it is sloppy ——
Perhaps it is irrelevant.
I will look at it again. It is a very particular use of the term. The initials "C.É." refer to the words "Caighdeán Éireannach".
From where did that section come? Is it necessary? Was it included in the 1961 Act? At that time the NSAI was not heard of and working towards a standard certification was unknown.
The point has been made. The Minister will look again at it before Report Stage.
