Click the case name for better results:

Re Trade Marks Act 1994 Trade Marks Nos 1338514 (in Class 5) and 1402537 (in Class 3) in the name of Laboratories Goemar SA and Applications for Revocation thereof Nos 10073 and 10074 by La Mer Technology Inc: ChD 20 Jun 2003

A case had been referred to the court as to the interpetation of the articles in the Directive. The court replied asking whether the subsequent Ansul judgement answered the questions raised.
Held: By agreement with the parties, only one of the . .

In Re Dualit Trade Mark; Dualit (Toaster Shapes): ChD 19 Jul 1999

An application to register a shape as a trade mark, on the basis of the shape only and without association with any other indication, would fail unless some particular element of the shape was driven by more than the need to produce a technical effect. Where an association with a particular shape with the applicant … Continue reading In Re Dualit Trade Mark; Dualit (Toaster Shapes): ChD 19 Jul 1999

Zam-Buk Series of 6 (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 21 Oct 2008

IPO The opponent in these proceedings claims to have used the mark ZAM-BUK for ten years prior to the filing of the application in suit. The background to the proceedings is as follows. ZAM-BUK is a traditional antiseptic ointment which was made and sold in the UK for over 100 years. The product was made … Continue reading Zam-Buk Series of 6 (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 21 Oct 2008

In Re Trade Mark No 2,023,949: ChD 18 Dec 1998

Where a sign or name had been used overwhelmingly with a descriptive or technical function, it was not validly registered as a trade mark. Name used in relevant public as an indicator of type not a designator of origin. Citations: Times 18-Dec-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: … Continue reading In Re Trade Mark No 2,023,949: ChD 18 Dec 1998

Bomar/Device Only (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 18 Nov 2003

A Mr David J Quigley had applied to register the marks in suit in October 1999 and registration had been effected in May 2000. In June 2000 the two marks were assigned to Bomar (UK) Ltd, of which Mr Quigley is a director. The applicant for invalidity stated that they had registered identical marks to … Continue reading Bomar/Device Only (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 18 Nov 2003

Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co; Harrison’s Trade Mark Application (CHINAWHITE): CA 27 Jul 2004

The applicant had been an employee of the objector at their nightclub ‘Chinawhite’ and whose principal attraction was a cocktail of the same name. Employees signed a confidentiality agreement as to the recipe. Having left the employment, the appellant set up a company with a similar name and applied for the mark ‘CHINA WHITE’. The … Continue reading Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co; Harrison’s Trade Mark Application (CHINAWHITE): CA 27 Jul 2004

South Cone Incorporated v Bessant, Greensmith, House and Stringer (a Partnership) trading as ‘Reef’; REEF Trade Mark: ChD 24 Jul 2001

The applicants sought registration of the trade mark ‘Reef’ in connection with merchandising activities in classes 25 and 26 arising from their pop group of the same name. The challengers owned a trade mark ‘Reef Brazil’ in class 25 in relation to footwear, and claimed that there was a risk of confusion, and that if … Continue reading South Cone Incorporated v Bessant, Greensmith, House and Stringer (a Partnership) trading as ‘Reef’; REEF Trade Mark: ChD 24 Jul 2001

Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AV and Others and One Other Action: HL 4 Apr 2001

A business had grown, but the two founders split, and set up separate business. There was no agreement as to the use of the trading names and trade marks. The original law of Trade Marks prohibited bare exclusive licenses, licences excluding the rights of the owner to use the mark, and with no quality control. … Continue reading Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AV and Others and One Other Action: HL 4 Apr 2001

Aaxel (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 9 Sep 2003

IPO The applicants were proprietors of the Community Trade Mark ‘@@XL pharma’, registered in Classes 3, 5, and 42. The Hearing Officer found that the goods were similar. Both marks had a distinctive character. Having compared the marks, however, and having reviewed the submissions and relevant cases, the Hearing Officer was not persuaded that the … Continue reading Aaxel (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 9 Sep 2003

Procter and Gamble Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks: CA 29 Jan 1999

The shape of a bottle, and patterns impressed on it, were insufficiently distinctive to be registerable as Trade Marks. The distinctiveness is assessed by reference to the object alone, not by reference to the marketing activity surrounding it. Citations: Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Times 17-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 684 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Procter and Gamble Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks: CA 29 Jan 1999

In Re ‘Swiss Miss’ Trademark: CA 20 Jul 1998

The test for confusion in Trade Marks context is wider than that for passing off. The use of a name which suggested manufacture in Switzerland when there was no connection with Switzerland, was misleading and deceptive and registration as trade mark was to be refused. Citations: Times 20-Jul-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 11 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading In Re ‘Swiss Miss’ Trademark: CA 20 Jul 1998

General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark: HL 1972

Lord Diplock said: ‘The common law of trade marks before 1875 The use by manufacturers of distinctive marks upon goods which they had made is of very ancient origin, but legal recognition of trade marks as a species of incorporeal property was first accorded by the Court of Chancery in the first half of the … Continue reading General Electric Co v General Electric Co Ltd; GE TM; Re GE Trade Mark: HL 1972

Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Trade and Barrel Ltd: ChD 25 Jul 2000

The court considered the nature of use in relation to goods under the 1994 Act, and the Directive: ‘It may well be that the concept of ‘use in relation to goods’ is different for differing purposes. Much may turn on the public conception of the use. For instance, if you buy Kodak film in Boots … Continue reading Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Trade and Barrel Ltd: ChD 25 Jul 2000

Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002

The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was primarily amongst surfers. The Hearing Officer conducted a ‘multi-factorial’ comparison, and rejected the opposition … Continue reading Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark: CA 28 May 2002

Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002

The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof. Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to statutory exceptions. To place a legal (persuasive) burden of proof on the defendant … Continue reading Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering): CACD 20 Nov 2002

Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 21 May 2013

Mark use in search engine was infringing use The claimant mark owner alleged that the defendant, in paying a search engine to use the claimants mark as a search keyword was infringing its rights. The defendant argued that the use of the same sign in different contexts could amount to a different and non-infringing use. … Continue reading Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 21 May 2013

Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd: PC 27 Jun 1994

(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of Parliamentary privilege. Held: A Defendant may not use libel proceedings to impugn … Continue reading Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd: PC 27 Jun 1994

UK Registered Trade Marks Nos 1338514 (in Class 5) and 1402537 (in Class 3) in the name of Laboratories Goemar SA and Applications for Revocation thereof Nos 10073 and 10074 by La Mer Technology Inc: ChD 19 Dec 2001

The applicants sought revocation of the defendant’s trade marks on the grounds that they had not been implemented after five years. It was sensible to go straight from the Directive, rather than the Act which implemented it. The onus was on the . .

Windows ‘R’ Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 8 Aug 2006

References: [2006] UKIntelP o22406 Links: Bailii Coram: Mrs J Pike ICO Section 5(2)(b): Invalidity action failed. Section 5(3): Invalidity action failed Section 5(4)(a): Invalidity action failed. Section 56(2): Invalidity action failed The applicant in these proceedings is the owner of a number of registered marks (UK & CTM) such as TOYS’R’US, MUMS’R’US, BABIES’R’US, ‘R’US etc … Continue reading Windows ‘R’ Us (Trade Mark: Inter Partes): IPO 8 Aug 2006

Acts

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

Hormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV: ChD 24 Jan 2005

The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the defendant had the mark ‘SPAMBUSTER’ for computer programs. Held: The claim was estopped. … Continue reading Hormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV: ChD 24 Jan 2005

Philips Electronics Nv v Remington Consumer Products Ltd: ChD 2 Feb 1998

It was a misuse of Trade Mark legislation to seek permanently to prevent the use of a substantial engineering design idea which was underlying the mark for which protection was sought. The judge revocation of the registration of the claimant’s mark on the ground, inter alia, that it was incapable of distinguishing the goods concerned … Continue reading Philips Electronics Nv v Remington Consumer Products Ltd: ChD 2 Feb 1998

Bonnier Media Limited v Smith and Kestrel Trading Corporation: SCS 1 Jul 2002

The defenders registered internet domain names. The claimants alleged an intended infringement of their trade marks, saying the defenders had a history of opening sites intended to deceive. The defenders who were resident in Greece said that the 1982 Act could not be used for a threatened delict, but only for a completed one. Held: … Continue reading Bonnier Media Limited v Smith and Kestrel Trading Corporation: SCS 1 Jul 2002

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

Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc: ChD 29 Jun 2007

Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted registration of esure’s trade mark. Esure now appealed a ruling against it’s … Continue reading Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc: ChD 29 Jun 2007

Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd: ChD 24 Jan 2007

Both parties used the name ‘Elle’ in their respective products, a women’s magazine, and handknitting yarns. They disputed the registration of a trade mark for the latter in the UK. Held: The court endorsed the continuing applicabiity of the guidelines in Reef when a court was asked to upset a decision of a lower but … Continue reading Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd: ChD 24 Jan 2007

Valentine v Regina: CACD 10 Nov 2006

The defendant appealed his sentence for conspiracy to supply counterfeit drugs. Held: The defendant need only serve the sentence if he failed to pay a penalty which the court had decided he could afford to pay. Appeal dismissed. Judges: Scott Baker LJ, Holland J, Loraine-Smith J Citations: [2006] EWCA Crim 2717 Links: Bailii Statutes: Medicines … Continue reading Valentine v Regina: CACD 10 Nov 2006

West Sussex County Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Kahraman: Admn 13 Jun 2006

The complainant appealed dismissal of charges against the respondent of displaying for sale goods bearing marks identical to registered trade marks. The defendant asserted that he had reasonable grounds for belief that the goods were not counterfeit having cecked with market officials and a VAT inspector. The magistrates had acted on the basis that the … Continue reading West Sussex County Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Kahraman: Admn 13 Jun 2006

Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (Approximation of Laws): ECJ 30 Mar 2006

ECJ Opinion – Trade marks of such a nature as to deceive the public or liable to mislead the public as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of a product – Trade mark assigned by the proprietor together with the undertaking producing the goods to which the mark relates – Directive 89/104/EEC. Judges: Ruiz-Jabaro … Continue reading Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (Approximation of Laws): ECJ 30 Mar 2006

Reliance Water Controls Ltd v Altecnic Ltd: CA 12 Dec 2001

The Court considered right of an applicant for the registration of a trade mark to change the class number specified by him on Form TM3 in respect of goods for which he had made an application for registration. The appeal turned on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act 1994 … Continue reading Reliance Water Controls Ltd v Altecnic Ltd: CA 12 Dec 2001

Tesco Stores Ltd v Elogicom Ltd and Another: ChD 8 Mar 2006

The claimant sought summary judgment against the defendant for operating websites using domain names which included the claimant’s name and trade marks. Tesco had entered into agreements with a third party company who organised adverts for Tesco on other sites. Tesco approved the main sites which did not use the Tesco name, but the defendant … Continue reading Tesco Stores Ltd v Elogicom Ltd and Another: ChD 8 Mar 2006

Regina v Zaman: CACD 1 Jul 2002

The defendant had been convicted of offences under the Act, and challenged a direction form the judge that the phrases ‘with a view to’ and ‘with intent to’ meant different things. Held: The judge’s direction was correct. ‘With a view to’ in this context, meant that the offender contemplated some result, without necessarily wanting or … Continue reading Regina v Zaman: CACD 1 Jul 2002

L’Oreal Sa and others v Bellure NV and others: ChD 4 Oct 2006

The claimant alleged that the defendants had been importing copies of their perfumes. The products were not counterfeits, but ‘smell-alikes’. The defendants’ packaging and naming was used to suggest which perfume it resembled. Held: The claimant’s expert survey evidence was defective in several ways, but even so there was no evidence of confusion under the … Continue reading L’Oreal Sa and others v Bellure NV and others: ChD 4 Oct 2006

Regina v Johnstone, etc: CACD 1 Feb 2002

The several defendants appealed convictions for breaches of section 92 of the Act. Held: The section presumed that a civil infringement of the Trade Mark had taken place. Accordingly any of the defences available to a civil action must be available also against a criminal action. Furthermore there was no conflict between the Act and … Continue reading Regina v Johnstone, etc: CACD 1 Feb 2002

Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v The Premier Company (UK) Ltd and Another: CA 26 Mar 2002

The owner of a registered trade mark ‘Premier’ sued for swing tags which carried the defendant’s full name ‘The Premier Company (UK) Ltd.’. Held: A trade mark use can fall within the scope of the Art 6.1 defence. There there was no passing off or Art.5.1(a) infringement in respect of these: ‘If the use by … Continue reading Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v The Premier Company (UK) Ltd and Another: CA 26 Mar 2002