IPO Trade Mark: Revocation – no use made of the mark by owner. Citations: [2013] UKIntelP o09213 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472214
Trade Mark: Rectification Citations: [2013] UKIntelP o07213 Links: Bailii Statutes: ade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472206
Objection that mark is customary within the trade. Citations: [2009] UKIntelP o14709 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.457355
IPO Trade Marks – Ex Parte Decisions Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: 715825, [2003] UKIntelP o24503, O-245-03 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 … Continue reading Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-245-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr R A Jones Citations: 715984, [2003] UKIntelP o25203, O-252-03 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. . . Cited by: See Also – Word Device (Our Ice … Continue reading Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-252-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: 715830, [2003] UKIntelP o25003, O-250-03 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 Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-250-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: 715829, [2003] UKIntelP o24803, O-248-03 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 Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-248-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: 715827, [2003] UKIntelP o24603, O-246-03 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 Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-246-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: 715824, [2003] UKIntelP o24403, O-244-03 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 Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-244-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr R A Jones Citations: 715851, [2003] UKIntelP o25503, O-255-03 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 … Continue reading Device Only (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-255-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: 716398, [2003] UKIntelP o24903, O-249-03 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-249-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr I Peggie Citations: O-247-03, 715828, [2003] UKIntelP o24703 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-247-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
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 Ex Parte. Judges: Mr R A Jones Citations: 715852, [2003] UKIntelP o25303, O-253-03 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 … Continue reading Device Only (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-253-03): IPO 20 Aug 2003
IPO Ex Parte. Judges: Mr R A Jones Citations: O-254-03, 715985, [2003] UKIntelP o25403 Links: IPO, Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: See Also – Word Device (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-252-03) IPO 20-Aug-2003 IPO Ex Parte. . .See Also – Word Device … Continue reading Device Only (Our Ice Cream of The Year) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) (O-254-03): IPO 20 Aug 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
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
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
The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the defendant had the mark ‘SPAMBUSTER’ for computer programs. Held: The claim was estopped. … Continue reading Hormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV: ChD 24 Jan 2005
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
Neuberger J approved the statement of Jacob J as to comparative marketing. Judges: Neuberger J Citations: [1998] FSR 9 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Approved – 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 … Continue reading MacMillan Magazines Ltd v RCN Publishing: 1998
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
Judges: Lord Justice Green Citations: [2019] EWCA Crim 2253 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 92(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Criminal Sentencing, Intellectual Property Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.647041
Citations: [2004] EWCA Crim 2237 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Crime Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.347432
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
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
The claimant opposed registration of trade marks by the defendant. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2013] EWHC 589 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994, Council Directive 2008/95/EC Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.471879
PO Trade Marks – Appeals to the appointed person – Application No: 225408 – Opposition Judges: Mr Hobbs Qc Citations: Opp 52473, [2003] UKIntelP o14003 Links: PO, Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 Intellectual Property Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192860
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
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 registration of two trade marks (‘Budweiser’) with the identical names was against the Act since it would appear to encourage the very confusion the Act sought to avoid. Nevertheless, where there was genuine honest concurrent use, that use might justify registration. Clause 12 of the Act clearly envisaged honest concurrent use. Here the name … Continue reading Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik; Budejovicky Bodvar Narodni Podnik v Anheuser-Busch: CA 7 Feb 2000
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
IPO Application for a Declaration of Invalidity Judges: Mr M Foley Citations: 2191404 Links: IPO Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3(6) Intellectual Property Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.274722
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
The court was asked as to the validity of certain trade marks. Arden, Kitchin,Lloyd Jones LJJ [2016] EWCA Civ 455 Bailii Trade Marks Act 1994 England and Wales Citing: See Also – Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp PCC 22-Mar-2012 Birss QC HHJ explained his comments in ALK-Abello regarding the criteria for … Continue reading Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation: CA 25 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
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
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
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
The claimant obtained an interim injunction in respect of alleged infringement of its trade marks in beers brewed under licence by the respondents. They said the beers produced were of inferior quality, and threatened the brand. The grant of such . .
