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 . .

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

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

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

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

Bunt v Tilley and others: QBD 10 Mar 2006

The claimant sought damages in defamation in respect of statements made on internet bulletin boards. He pursued the operators of the bulletin boards, and the court now considered the liability of the Internet Service Providers whose systems had inevitably carried the traffic from the bulletin boards to their own customers. Held: The claims were struck … Continue reading Bunt v Tilley and others: QBD 10 Mar 2006

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

Best Buy Co Inc and Another v Worldwide Sales Corp. Espana Sl: ChD 8 Jul 2010

The claimant accused the defendant of making threats in connection with trade mark applications. The claimants operated under US trade marks associated with ‘Best Buy’ and sought similar marks in Europe. The defendant company traded under a similar style, and opposed the application, refering to its existing registrations. The claimants had proposed a co-existence agreement, … Continue reading Best Buy Co Inc and Another v Worldwide Sales Corp. Espana Sl: ChD 8 Jul 2010

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 . .

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

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

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

Vodafone Group Plc v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd: ChD 1997

The court examined the development of the law in relation to comparative advertising. Jacob J said: ‘Prior to the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994 comparative advertising using a registered trade mark of a competitor was, subject to minor exceptions involving the use of a company name, forbidden by section 4(1) of … Continue reading Vodafone Group Plc v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd: ChD 1997

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

Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc: ChD 1998

The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative advertising . . As long as the use of a competitor’s mark is honest, there is nothing … Continue reading Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc: ChD 1998

Discovery Communications Inc v Discovery Fm Ltd: IHCS 25 Jan 2000

It was no defence to an action for trade mark infringement to assert that although the registration covered activities of the type undertaken, the claimant did not actually provide services of that precise type. It is in the nature of such registrations that they reserve to the mark holder the right to develop his activities … Continue reading Discovery Communications Inc v Discovery Fm Ltd: IHCS 25 Jan 2000

Decon Laboratories Ltd v Fred Baker Scientific Ltd and Another: ChD 28 Feb 2001

The procedure for applying for the registration of a European Trade Mark did not involve the same issues as applied in England as to the use of the mark within the first five years, nor any statement of a bona fide intention to use the mark. Only exceptionally therefore could a European Trade Mark be … Continue reading Decon Laboratories Ltd v Fred Baker Scientific Ltd and Another: ChD 28 Feb 2001

Barclays Bank Plc v RBS Advanta: ChD 8 Feb 1996

A party complaining about the use of a trade mark in a comparative advert is required to show some dishonesty. Section 10(6) of the Act was described as ‘home grown’ rather than derived directly from the Directive. Judges: Laddiie J Citations: Times 08-Feb-1996, [1996] RPC 307 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 10(6) Cited by: Cited … Continue reading Barclays Bank Plc v RBS Advanta: ChD 8 Feb 1996

Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed: ChD 6 Apr 2001

The defendant had sold memorabilia using the claimant’s name, and marks for thirty years. He sought to make it clear that the products were not sourced from the club. They were purchased, generally, by people who wore them as badges of allegiance to the club. The claim of passing off failed because the club had … Continue reading Arsenal Football Club Plc v Reed: ChD 6 Apr 2001

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

Beautimatic International Ltd v Mitchell International Pharmaceuticals Ltd and An: ChD 8 Jul 1999

The affixing of a UK Trade Mark to packaging materials in the UK on the basis that the materials were to be exported before being affixed, to goods which outside the UK would not be infringing was not unlawful. Times 08-Jul-1999 Trade Marks Act 1994 10 (4) (a) England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 31 … Continue reading Beautimatic International Ltd v Mitchell International Pharmaceuticals Ltd and An: ChD 8 Jul 1999

Emaco Limited, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v Dyson Appliances Ltd: PatC 26 Jan 1999

A company which was using a competitor’s trade mark in the context of an advert, which made misleading and derogatory comparisons, failed the ‘honest practice’ test, and was abusing the rights to use the other company’s mark under the Act. In this case however each party was guilty of such failures. Times 08-Feb-1999, Gazette 17-Feb-1999, … Continue reading Emaco Limited, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v Dyson Appliances Ltd: PatC 26 Jan 1999

Lewis v Client Connection Ltd: ChD 6 Jul 2011

The claimant alleged infringement of his registered trade marks ‘Money Saving Expert’ and associated terms. The defendant operated a service trading as ‘Money Claiming Expert’. Both services included advising those who might wish to claim refunds from banks. The claimant sought summary judgment. Held: The defence as filed proposed no real defence,merely putting the claimant … Continue reading Lewis v Client Connection Ltd: ChD 6 Jul 2011

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 . .

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

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

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

Anheuser-Busch v Budejovicky Budvar, narodni podnik: ECJ 16 Nov 2004

Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation – Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement – Trade marks – Scope of the proprietor’s exclusive right to the trade mark – Alleged use of the sign as a trade name. Citations: C-245/02, [2004] EUECJ C-245/02, [2004] I-10989 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: European Citing: See Also – … Continue reading Anheuser-Busch v Budejovicky Budvar, narodni podnik: ECJ 16 Nov 2004

Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances: CA 1973

The claimant sought to bring his claim under a provision which required a complaint to the industrial tribunal to be made within four weeks of the dismissal unless the employment tribunal was satisfied that this was not ‘practicable’. He did not meet the limit. Held: Time limits in all statutory tribunals are jurisdictional in nature, … Continue reading Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances: CA 1973

Gerolsteiner Brunnen v Putsch: ECJ 7 Jan 2004

There was a conflict between the registered mark Gerri (for inter alia mineral water) and an alleged infringement ‘Kerry Spring’ for Irish mineral water from the Kerry Spring sold by a company called Kerry Spring Water. The referring court held ‘Gerri’ and ‘Kelly’ confusingly similar (by reason of aural confusion) and that there would be … Continue reading Gerolsteiner Brunnen v Putsch: ECJ 7 Jan 2004

Thomson Holidays Limited v Norwegian Cruise Line Limited: CA 17 Dec 2002

Aldous LJ said: ‘Pumfrey J in the Decon case suggested that the court’s task was to arrive at a fair specification of goods having regard to the use made. I agree, but the court still has the difficult task of deciding what is fair. In my view that task should be carried out so as … Continue reading Thomson Holidays Limited v Norwegian Cruise Line Limited: CA 17 Dec 2002

Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed: ECJ 12 Nov 2002

The trade mark owner sought orders against a street vendor who sold articles using their marks. He asserted that the marks were not attached to show any quality, but were used by the fans as badges of allegiance. Held: The function of a trade mark was to guarantee the identity or origin of the goods, … Continue reading Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed: ECJ 12 Nov 2002

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

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

Silhouette International Schmied GmbH and Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH: ECJ 16 Jul 1998

National Trade Mark rules providing for exhaustion of rights in Trade Marks for goods sold outside area of registration were contrary to the EU first directive on trade marks. A company could prevent sale of ‘grey goods’ within the internal market. Articles 5 to 7 of the directive embody a ‘complete harmonisation’ of the rules … Continue reading Silhouette International Schmied GmbH and Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH: ECJ 16 Jul 1998

Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others: HL 8 Feb 2001

The name ‘Parma Ham’ was controlled as to its use under Italian law, and the associated mark, the ‘corona ducale’, was to be applied to a sale of Parma Ham, including any packaging. Proper Parma Ham was imported and resold through the defendant’s stores, under the name Parma Ham, but without the mark being shown. … Continue reading Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v Asda Stores Limited and others: HL 8 Feb 2001

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd and Another: ChD 21 Oct 2004

The claimant alleged infringement of its trade mark. It registered a two dimensional mark which represented its razor which had three rotary blades on the head of the razor. The defendant manufactured and sold a similar design, and counterclaimed for a declaration that the mark was invalid. Held: The mark was invalid in that it … Continue reading Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd and Another: ChD 21 Oct 2004

Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton Television Ltd and Another: CA 7 Jan 1999

The defendant was accused of infringing copyright in a TV programme relating to the pregnancy of a woman with eight foetuses. The defendant claimed fair dealing, but that defence was rejected by the trial judge. Held: The decision was reversed. The test of use for ‘criticism or review’ is objective, and satisfied here with full … Continue reading Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton Television Ltd and Another: CA 7 Jan 1999

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

Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar: CA 1984

The plaintiff sold the well-known ‘Budweiser’ beer in the US, but it was not generally available in the UK, being sold in American military bases and in a few duty-free shops. However, the beer was widely known throughout the UK because of the plaintiff’s publicity efforts as well as tourist and business traffic between Europe … Continue reading Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar: CA 1984

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

Regina v Rhodes: CACD 2002

Andrew Smith J: ‘No doubt in many cases the fact that a trader could ascertain whether a trade mark was registered by searching the register will make it extremely difficult to establish a belief involving ignorance of a registered mark is held on ‘on reasonable grounds’.’ Judges: Kay LJ and Andrew Smith J Citations: [2003] … Continue reading Regina v Rhodes: CACD 2002

British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited: ChD 25 Oct 2000

The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood. Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of another’s trade mark in comparitive advertising. In this case the advertisement, though … Continue reading British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited: ChD 25 Oct 2000

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

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others: HL 8 Feb 1990

Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares. Held: The duties of an auditor are founded in contract and the extent of the duties … Continue reading Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others: HL 8 Feb 1990

Wakefield and Another, Regina v: CACD 11 Aug 2004

Judges: Lord Justice Latham Mr Justice Grigson Sir Edwin Jowitt Citations: [2004] EWCA Crim 2278 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 92(1) 104(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.466414

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992

Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the cost to the employer, or … Continue reading Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart: HL 26 Nov 1992

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

Parry v Cleaver: HL 5 Feb 1969

PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer. Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were not to be reduced by deducting the full net value of … Continue reading Parry v Cleaver: HL 5 Feb 1969

Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Prince PLC v Prince Sports Group Inc: ChD 1998

In a threat action for trade mark infringement, the plaintiff had only supplied services. The defendant made a general threat without limiting it to proceedings in respect of goods or services. The defendant argued that the threat would be understood as relating only to services, as that is all the plaintiff provided. Held: Section 70 … Continue reading Prince PLC v Prince Sports Group Inc: ChD 1998

Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 May 2016

The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by Airtours. Held: The appeal was dismissed (Clarke and Carnwath LL dissenting) For the VAT to … Continue reading Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 11 May 2016

Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd: QBD 15 Jul 2009

The claimant said that the defendant’s characterisation of its own products as ‘Good for You’ by reference to a description saying that it did not include the claimant’s product as a component, was a malicious falsehood. The defendant sold other products which did include Aspartame. The court was asked to determine the meanings. Held: The … Continue reading Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd: QBD 15 Jul 2009

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

Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: HL 18 Feb 1993

Local Council may not Sue in Defamation Local Authorities must be open to criticism as political and administrative bodies, and so cannot be allowed to sue in defamation. Such a right would operate as ‘a chill factor’ on free speech. Freedom of speech was the underlying value which supported the decision to lay down the … Continue reading Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: HL 18 Feb 1993

Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith: QBD 1971

The plaintiff church sued the defendant, a Member of Parliament, for remarks made by the defendant in a television programme. He pleaded fair comment and the plaintiff replied with a plea of malice, relying on statements made in Parliament. The question arose at trial whether such reliance infringed Article 9. Held: It did. The plaintiff … Continue reading Church of Scientology of California v Johnson-Smith: QBD 1971

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

Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs.Com Ltd: CA 14 Jul 2004

Walker v Wilshire still Good Law After successfully appealing, the defendant claimant argued for a substantial part of its costs, saying that the defendant had unreasonably refused ADR. To pursue this, it now sought disclosure of the details of the without prejudice negotiations between them. Held: No distinction is to be made between party-to-party negotiations … Continue reading Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs.Com Ltd: CA 14 Jul 2004

Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

Fair Coment on Political Activities The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the claimant’s status as a politician. Held: The appeal failed (Lords Hope … Continue reading Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others: HL 28 Oct 1999

Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd: SC 27 Jun 2012

The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding information which would allow it to trade lawfully. The Court was now asked: ‘whether a person who … Continue reading Oracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd: SC 27 Jun 2012

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

Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2): HL 12 Oct 2000

The plaintiffs alleged the involvement of the defendant in a conspiracy to defraud. He had been domiciled in England, but had moved to Germany. He denied that the UK court had jurisdiction. The court of appeal said that jurisdiction was determined at the issue of the writ. The defendant appealed. Held: Where one defendant was … Continue reading Canada Trust Co and Others v Stolzenberg and Others (No 2): HL 12 Oct 2000

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

Levi Strauss and Co and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and others: ChD 31 Jul 2002

The trade mark owners sought to restrain the defendants from selling within the EU, articles bearing their mark which had been imported other than through their own channels. The defendants resisted summary judgement after reference to the European Court of Justice, on the grounds that the Regulation was invalid as infringing a basic tenet of … Continue reading Levi Strauss and Co and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and others: ChD 31 Jul 2002

Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 28 Jul 2005

Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by other companies should proceed through the Commissioners who could implement European law directly. The taxpayers … Continue reading Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue: HL 28 Jul 2005

British Telecommunications Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: Admn 20 Apr 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of legislative provisions requiring Internet Service Providers to become involved in regulation of copyright infringements by its subscribers. They asserted that the Act and proposed Order were contrary to European law. Held: The request was refused. No obligation had yet fallen on the claimant, and the exact form and rules … Continue reading British Telecommunications Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: Admn 20 Apr 2011

British Aerospace plc v Green and Others: CA 18 Apr 1995

The employer was to make 530 members of its staff redundant. Each staff member was assessed and scored. The claimants said that the method of selection was unfair, and sought disclosure of the scores of all employees. Held: It was wrong to order discovery of the forms of employees who had not been selected for … Continue reading British Aerospace plc v Green and Others: CA 18 Apr 1995

Quinton v Peirce and Another: QBD 30 Apr 2009

One election candidate said that another had defamed him in an election leaflet. Additional claims were made in injurious falsehood and under the Data Protection Act. Held: The claim in defamation failed. There were no special privileges in defamation attaching to election materials. However the claimant had not been able to establish any malice. The … Continue reading Quinton v Peirce and Another: QBD 30 Apr 2009

Kousar, Regina v: CACD 21 Jan 2009

The husband had been convicted of various criminal offences including under the 1994 Act. The wife appealed against her conviction for unauthorised use of a trade mark, having allowed counterfeit goods to be stored in the matrimonial home. Held: The appeal succeeded. The authorities referred to by the crown were attempts to draw parallels with … Continue reading Kousar, Regina v: CACD 21 Jan 2009

Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp: IPEC 22 Dec 2016

Distinction between reputation and goodwill The claimant had practised independently as an employment solicitor. For a period, she was a partner with the defendant firm practising under the name ‘Bhayani Bracewell’. Having departed the firm, she now objected to the continued use of her name, alleging passing off, and requesting revocation of the associated trade … Continue reading Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp: IPEC 22 Dec 2016

Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

Sympathetic construction of national legislation LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC Directive designed to protect companies and third parties from the adverse effects of the doctrine of nullity. … Continue reading Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA: ECJ 13 Nov 1990