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 questions was answered, and four remained. The court requested the European court to continue. … Continue reading 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
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind. An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial contracts. An entire agreement clause limits the terms of the parties’ agreement to their written agreement and … Continue reading Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd: ChD 15 Jul 1994
The Hearing Officer commented upon the stylization of the mark as advertised – with a lowercase ‘i’ and noted that this appeared to be at odds with the mark depicted on the application form. However, nothing turned on this point and he treated the mark as the word RAINYSEASON. The opponent (hereafter referred to as … Continue reading Rainyseason (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 10 Mar 2005
Trade Mark: Invalidity – allegation that Mark registered here by person faseley purporting to be the agent of the mark holder in the US. Citations: [2010] UKIntelP o09710 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.457885
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: 716400, [2003] UKIntelP o25103, O-251-03 Links: IPO, Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Citing: See Also – Device Only (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-254-03) IPO 20-Aug-2003 IPO Ex Parte. . . See Also – Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The … Continue reading Device Only (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-251-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO The Hearing Officer in the above proceedings found for Continental Shelf 128 Limited. (Decisions dated 17 October 2002 (BL O/424/02 and BL O/425/02). Ms Emanuel appealed to the Appointed Person. Subsequently, Continental Shelf 128 Ltd (CSL) requested that the two appeals be referred to the High Court.The Appointed Person considered his powers to refer … Continue reading Elizabeth Emanuel, Elizabeth Emanuel Double E Crown Device (Trade Mark: Revocation): IPO 27 Jun 2003
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 holder to demonstrate use. One claim was for medical use, but the product … Continue reading 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
Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2010] EWHC 443 (Ch), [2010] RPC 21, [2010] ETMR 37 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 13 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.403333
The claimant appealed against refusal of the registration of its mark ‘AX’ for confusion with the defendant objector’s registered mark ‘AXE’ for similar produxts. Judges: Mann J Citations: [2010] EWHC 2939 (Ch), [2011] ETMR 13 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994, Trade Marks (International Registration) Order 2008 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: … Continue reading Giorgio Armani Spa v Sunrich Clothing Ltd: ChD 16 Nov 2010
Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given oral evidence, and the Registrar contended that any further appeal to the High court should … Continue reading Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks: ChD 15 May 2003
The claimant said that the defendant had infriged its rights by the use of its logo on their publications. Judges: Proudman J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1489 (Ch) Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd HL 1964 What is substantial copyingThe plaintiff alleged copying of their … Continue reading Future Publishing Ltd v The Edge Interactive Media Inc and Others: ChD 13 Jun 2011
An action was begun opposing a trade mark. It was conducted under the old rules, which did not allow for an order for discovery. After the new rules came into effect, discovery was sought, but the registrar said the old rules would continue to apply within the case. That decision was now challenged by way … Continue reading Regina v Register of Trade Marks ex parte Interturbine Germany Gmbh: Admn 22 Feb 1999
The defendant appealed against an order made for payment of all the prosecutor’s costs in full on his conviction for only some of the trade mark offences prosecuted against him. Held: Where a defendant has been convicted on only some of several counts, it is wrong to order him to pay the whole of the … Continue reading Splain, Regina v: CACD 12 Jan 2010
The claimants owned Community and UK trade marks in the name ‘Cipriani’. The defendants operated a restaurant in London using, under the licence of another defendant, the same name. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further use of the name. The defendants said that they came within the ‘own name’ exception. Held: The appeal … Continue reading Hotel Cipriani Srl and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others: CA 24 Feb 2010
The parties had settled their disagreement, but now disputed the interpretation of the settlement. The defendant sought to be allowed to give in evidence correspondence leading up to the settlement which had been conducted on a without prejudice basis. Held: The evidence was not admissible. There was no additional class of situation where without prejudice … Continue reading Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading Sa v TMT Asia Ltd: CA 15 Feb 2010
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
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
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
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
The court was asked if the section 92(5) defence applied where the defendant does not know of the existence of the registered trade mark in question. Held: The defence is not available in such a case. The court noted that section 92(5) speaks of a reasonable belief that the ‘manner’ of use of the sign … Continue reading Torbay Council v Singh: Admn 10 Jun 1999
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
Judges: Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Keith Citations: [2010] EWHC 1304 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 92(1)(c), Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 107(1)(d)(ii) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property, Crime Updated: 02 February 2022; Ref: scu.420408
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
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
(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
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
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
Leave to appeal – findings of trade mark infringement – liability as joint tortfeasor. Held: Recorder’s judgment faultless – leave refused. Judges: Kitchin LJ Citations: [2013] EWCA Civ 219 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 10(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472882
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 ‘Mail’ has not acquired a descriptive meaning, and nor is there any requirement in the law … Continue reading 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 claimant alleged trade mark infringement by the respondents by the use of a mark in a pop-up advert. Held: The own-name defence to trade mark infringement is limited. Some confusion may be allowed if overall the competition was not unfair in all the circumstances. No confusion was intended; they wanted only to associate their … Continue reading Reed Executive Plc, Reed Solutions Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (Uk) Ltd, Totaljobs Com Ltd: CA 3 Mar 2004
Pumfrey J said: ‘Under Art 5(1) (b) [section 10 (2)] the comparison is not a straightforward mark for sign comparison. On the contrary, it involves a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion as to origin of the goods or services concerned. This involves an assessment of the distinctiveness of the mark, and involves the … Continue reading Reed Executive plc and Reed Solutions plc v- Reed Business Information Ltd, Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd and totaljobs com Ltd: ChD 19 Dec 2002
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The defendant company used the trade marks of the claimant on their web-site to attract visitors. However the trade marks themselves were not visible when the site was browsed, or when it was listed on the search engine.
Held: The use of a . .
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
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
The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it. Held: Where A becomes liable to B as a joint tortfeasor with C in the tort of … Continue reading Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department: CA 23 Jul 1997
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
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
The appellant had sought to register as a trade mark the shape of a polo mint. The objector said it lacked sufficient distinctive character. The appellant sought to amend the specification of the trade mark to limit its application as to the goods to which it would be applied, and the dimensions and colour. Held: … Continue reading Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v Mars UK Limited: CA 26 Jul 2004
An allegation was made that Cuban cigars imported by the claimant infringed the trade marks of the respondents being either counterfeit or parallel imports, and were impounded. The claimant sought a declaration of non-infringement and their release, saying that the respondents had consented to the import within the Directive. Held: The appeal succeeded. The Cuban … Continue reading Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters and Frankau Ltd: CA 8 Mar 2007
The claimants challenged award of a trade mark saying they were owners of many marks incorporating the word ‘Master’ associated with credit, and the applicants mark was too similar to its own. Held: Applying Davidoff, the words can also be read as extending to goods or services which are identical with or similar to those … Continue reading Mastercard International Incorporated v Hitachi Credit (Uk) Plc: ChD 8 Jul 2004
The claimant had licensed the defendant to use its trademarks in connection with the naming of their hotels in Germany. The defendants failed to pay their fees as agreed, the claimants terminated the license and now sought payment under the termination provisions. The defendants alleged misrepresentation saying that they had agreed the fee after being … Continue reading Six Continents Hotels Inc v Event Hotels Gmbh: QBD 21 Sep 2006
Citations: [2003] EWCA Crim 3110 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 92(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.279858
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
Judges: Norris J Citations: [2011] EWHC 1036 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.434888
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
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
The defendants appealed convictions for contempt of court, on the basis of having wilfully interrupted the court. The respondent said that no appeal lay. Held: The statute was ambiguous, and ‘there can be no good reason why a person convicted under s.12 should not have a right of appeal against conviction as well as against … Continue reading Haw and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 12 Dec 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
The claimant challenged a finding that as Mayor of London offensive remarks he had made to a journalist as he was pursued leaving a private party had brought his office into disrepute. Held: The appeal succeeded. Though the remarks may have reduced the claimant’s personal standing, they had insufficient connection with his position to be … Continue reading Livingstone v The Adjudication Panel for England: Admn 19 Oct 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition Judges: Mr M Knight Citations: OPP 48009 / 48010 / 48011 Links: PO Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.175836
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
The name ‘Elvis Presley’ was not of itself sufficiently distinctive to justify registration as a trade mark, being neither adapted to distinguish any particular goods nor capable of distinguishing them. Citations: Times 22-Mar-1999 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81866
Old contract clearly licensing use of Trade Mark name created a continuing right to use the name and was not now to be restrained by Trade Marks legislation. Citations: Times 01-Jun-1998 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81263
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr A James Citations: 1577271, 1577275 Links: IPO Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Cited by: See Also – Mark: (SHAPE) CUSHION (No 2) TMR 18-Aug-1998 IPO Ex Parte. . . Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete. Intellectual Property Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.276061
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
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
Citations: [2001] FSR 63 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 92 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Applied – Torbay Council v Singh Admn 10-Jun-1999 The court was asked if the section 92(5) defence applied where the defendant does not know of the existence of the registered trade mark in question. Held: The defence is not available … Continue reading Regina v Keane: CACD 2001
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
IPO Opposition – application made in bad faith Judges: Mr M Knight Citations: 2146098 Links: IPO Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.275342
IPO Opposition. Judges: Mr G Salthouse Citations: 2102999 Links: IPO Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.275260
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
