Click the case name for better results:

Premier Brands Uk Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd: ChD 3 Feb 2000

The claimants owned a major brand mark used in the distribution of tea. The defendants operated in the sale of kitchen equipment. Whether a sign infringed a mark without due cause was to be resolved at trial by the judge on the facts. The infringer had to show that he had good cause for his … Continue reading Premier Brands Uk Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd: ChD 3 Feb 2000

Zino Davidoff SA v A and G Imports Ltd etc: ECJ 20 Nov 2001

An injunction was sought to prevent retailers marketing in the EEA products which had been obtained outside the EEA for resale within the EEA but outside the controlled distribution system. Held: Silence alone was insufficient to constitute implied consent for the resale within the EEA of goods otherwise than in accordance with a licence from … Continue reading Zino Davidoff SA v A and G Imports Ltd etc: ECJ 20 Nov 2001

Asprey and Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd and Another: CA 11 Oct 2001

The Asprey family had been in business for many years. Their business was incorporated, and later sold to the claimants. A member of the Asprey family sought to carry on new businesses through limited companies using the family name. Upon request, he changed the names to the names of the respondent companies. Later he left … Continue reading Asprey and Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd and Another: CA 11 Oct 2001

BASF Plc v CEP (UK) Plc: ChD 26 Oct 1995

Section 10(3) does require proof that the use was such as was likely to cause confusion. Judges: Knox J Citations: Unreported, 26 October 1995 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 810(4) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc, Ladbrokes Plc, J Sainsbury Plc, Virgin Enterprises Ltd, British Telecommunications Plc, Telecom Securior … Continue reading BASF Plc v CEP (UK) Plc: ChD 26 Oct 1995

Baywatch Production Co Inc v Home Video Channel: 1997

Proof of an infringement under Section 10(3) does require proof that the use was such as was likely to cause confusion. Citations: [1997] FSR 22 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 810(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc, Ladbrokes Plc, J Sainsbury Plc, Virgin Enterprises Ltd, British Telecommunications Plc, Telecom … Continue reading Baywatch Production Co Inc v Home Video Channel: 1997

British Sugar Plc v James Roberston and Sons: ChD 17 Feb 1996

The question was raised on whether, given its derivation from article 5 of the trade mark directive, non-trade mark use could be caught by sections 10(1) to (3). Held: There was no trade mark infringement by the use of a common laudatory word. The trade mark registration was cancelled. Courts should look to whether they … Continue reading British Sugar Plc v James Roberston and Sons: ChD 17 Feb 1996

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Sunrider Corporation (T/A Sunrider International) v Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd: ChD 22 Jan 2007

An application had been made to have the trade mark declared invalid. The owner replied saying that the five year period during which a mark might be challenged had expired. Held: The five year period commenced not from the date when the application for registration of the mark was made, but from the date when … Continue reading Sunrider Corporation (T/A Sunrider International) v Vitasoy International Holdings Ltd: ChD 22 Jan 2007

Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

(Grand Chamber) The subsequent use against a defendant in a prosecution, of evidence which had been obtained under compulsion in company insolvency procedures was a convention breach of Art 6. Although not specifically mentioned in Article 6 of the Convention the right to silence and the right not to incriminate oneself are generally recognised international … Continue reading Saunders v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Dec 1996

Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005

The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. Held: The appeal was dismissed. For Article 9 to be engaged (aside from certain other threshold conditions) the … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others: HL 24 Feb 2005

Regina v Johnstone: HL 22 May 2003

The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act could become criminal. The prosecutor appealed the decision of … Continue reading Regina v Johnstone: HL 22 May 2003

Associated Newspapers Limited, Daily Mail and General Trust Plc v Express Newspapers (an Unlimited Company, Incorrectly Sued As Express Newspapers Limited): ChD 11 Jun 2003

The claimants sought to prevent the respondents from starting an evening newspaper entitled ‘THE MAIL’ as an infringement of their registered mark, and as passing off. In turn the defendant challenged the validity of the mark.
Held: The word . .