The claimant appealed against an order striking out their threat action for trade mark infringement, in respect of the words ‘No Tears’ when used for children’s shampoo. Held: The court had to consider both the letter and the surrounding circumstances. A threat need not be direct, and conditionality may not be an answer. The thrust … Continue reading L’Oreal (UK) Limited and Another v Johnson and Johnson and Another: ChD 7 Mar 2000
A logo had been created for the claimants, by an independent sub-contractor. They sought assignment of their legal title, but, knowing of the claimant’s interest the copyright was assigned to a third party out of the jurisdiction. The claimant sought an order for its transfer, and an order was so made. Before it was perfected … Continue reading R Griggs Group Ltd and others v Evans and others (No 2): ChD 12 May 2004
The owners of copyright in drawings of ‘Popeye, the Sailor’ sued importers of ‘Popeye’ dolls and other toys. The defendants contended that the copyright in the original work had been lost by the operation of section 22 of the 1911 Act because the . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
A model of a wolf-cub’s head was produced from a papier-mache mould in order to be used as a totem by the Boy Scouts Association. They had failed to register it as a design under the 1907 Act and sued for infringement of their copyright under the 1911 Act. Held: The item was not protected … Continue reading Pytram v Models (Leicester) Ltd: ChD 1930
Novelty was claimed in shape or configuration of the brassiere the subject of the registration. Held; Under the law of registered designs, the designer had to state in what respect he claimed novelty – was it shape, configuration pattern or . .
The design in question consisted of a drawing or picture of a nipple, such as was used for the purpose of lubricating the bearings of automobiles. It was submitted for the plaintiff that if a design had utility, it might still be registered under . .
A wall plaque was published before 1950. Its design was an original artistic work but was produced for the purpose of reproduction by an industrial process. It was not registered as an industrial design under the applicable designs legislation . .
