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 . .

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

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

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

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

Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd: QBD 31 Mar 2000

In a contract for the purchase of airplanes, the plaintiff claimed misrepresentation, and as a result, rescission and damages. The issue was whether, once the right to rescind had been lost, any claim for damages had also lapsed under section 2(2). Held: The power to award damages was properly an alternative to rescission, which a … Continue reading Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd: QBD 31 Mar 2000

Linkin Park: TMR 3 Aug 2004

The applicant sought registration of the mark ‘Linkin Park’ under the classifications including posters. The name had been used by a music band, and objection was made, saying it would jeopardise the guarantee of origin associated with the name. Held: ‘The purchasers, and potential purchasers, of posters etc. purchase particular posters because they represent something … Continue reading Linkin Park: TMR 3 Aug 2004

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

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

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

Thomas Pink Limited v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd: ChD 31 Jul 2014

The claimant alleged infrngement of its trade mark. The defendant replied that the mark had not been reproduced exactly. And was invalid. Held: The claim succeeded. The difference was not sufficient to amount to a defence where the alteration did not change the essential and distinctive characteri of the mark. proprietor of a registered trade … Continue reading Thomas Pink Limited v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd: ChD 31 Jul 2014

Regina v Gough (Robert): HL 1993

The defendant had been convicted of robbery. He appealed, saying that a member of the jury was a neighbour to his brother, and there was therefore a risk of bias. This was of particular significance as the defendant was charged with conspiracy with that brother to commit burglaries. The juror had sworn an affidavit that … Continue reading Regina v Gough (Robert): HL 1993

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essex Trading Standards v Singh: Admn 3 Mar 2009

The defendant had been accused of selling counterfeit trainer shoes. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the prosecution on the basis that the defenant had not known that they were counterfeit. Held: The onus of proof lay on the defendant to establish on objectively reasonable grounds that these were genuine goods. No reasonable bench could … Continue reading Essex Trading Standards v Singh: Admn 3 Mar 2009

Johnson v Unisys Ltd: HL 23 Mar 2001

The claimant contended for a common law remedy covering the same ground as the statutory right available to him under the Employment Rights Act 1996 through the Employment Tribunal system. Held: The statutory system for compensation for unfair dismissal is a complete system, and was intended to replace any common law action for damages arising … Continue reading Johnson v Unisys Ltd: HL 23 Mar 2001

Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department: CA 23 Jul 1997

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 . .

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 . .

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 . .