Click the case name for better results:

Roche Products Ltd and Another v Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2006

The defendant appealed summary judgment in a trade mark infringement case based on parallel imports of ACCU-CHEK blood testing strips for diabetics. The defendant said that the products were ‘CE’ marked and therefore intended for sale within the EU. Held: The function of a CE mark is not directed in any way to the question … Continue reading Roche Products Ltd and Another v Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2006

Davidoff et Cle SA and Another v Gofkid Ltd: ECJ 9 Jan 2003

The claimant distributed cosmetics and other goods in Germany under the mark ‘Davidoff’, and the defendants used a similar registered mark for their own and similar goods. They sought protection under the directive. Held: The directive explicitly provided a protection for the user of an earlier mark against the user of a later and similar … Continue reading Davidoff et Cle SA and Another v Gofkid Ltd: ECJ 9 Jan 2003

L’Oreal Sa and Others v Ebay International Ag and Others: ChD 22 May 2009

The court was asked as to whether the on-line marketplace site defendant was liable for trade mark infringements by those advertising goods on the web-site. Held: The ECJ had not yet clarified the law on accessory liability in trade mark infringement, and the legislation remained unclear. Many of the direct sellers were held to be … Continue reading L’Oreal Sa and Others v Ebay International Ag and Others: ChD 22 May 2009

Julius Samann Ltd and others v Tetrosyl Ltd: ChD 17 Mar 2006

The Trade Marks Act 1994 must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with the Directive, and the relevant provisions of the Directive conform to those of the Regulation. Kitchin J summarised the principles to be applied when testing for confusion of marks: ‘i) The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account … Continue reading Julius Samann Ltd and others v Tetrosyl Ltd: ChD 17 Mar 2006

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd: ECJ 18 Jun 2002

The claimant developed a three headed rotary razor for men. They obtained registration of the arrangement as a trade mark. They sued the defendant for infringement, and the defendant countered challenging the validity of the registration, saying the design was functional. Held: A sign consisting exclusively of a product’s shape was unregistrable, if it was … Continue reading Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd: ECJ 18 Jun 2002

Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Others v Swingward Ltd and Another: ECJ 23 Apr 2002

The applicant sought to restrict the right of parallel importers of its goods to repackage the goods, and re-supply them in packaging on which their trade mark had been re-applied. Held: The prohibition of quantitative restrictions on imports does not preclude restrictions justified on the grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such … Continue reading Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Others v Swingward Ltd and Another: ECJ 23 Apr 2002

Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc and Rado Uhren AG: ECJ 8 Apr 2003

Applications for the registration of three dimensional trade marks had been referred to the court on the question of whether they could be refused for lack of distinctiveness. Held: The tests for three dimensional marks were no more strict than for other marks. When looking at the grounds for refusal, the public interest was to … Continue reading Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc and Rado Uhren AG: ECJ 8 Apr 2003

Interflora, Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 22 May 2009

Each of the parties provided a service delivering flowers. The claimant had a trade mark, and the defendants each purchased the use of that trade mark and variations of it with a search engine (Google) so that a search under the trade mark produced references also to the defendants’ web-sites. The bids for these words … Continue reading Interflora, Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 22 May 2009