Click the case name for better results:

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 Luggage and Bags Ltd v Premier Company (Uk) Ltd and Another: ChD 17 Oct 2000

The word ‘Premier’ although devoid of distinctive character in itself, but having been registered as a trade mark, had acquired a sufficient distinctiveness to justify and found an action for infringement and passing off. The test was whether through use of the trademark, a sufficient number both of potential purchasers of the claimants goods, and … Continue reading Premier Luggage and Bags Ltd v Premier Company (Uk) Ltd and Another: ChD 17 Oct 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

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

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

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

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

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

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