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
IPO Trade Mark: Revocation – no use made of the mark by owner. . .
Trade Mark: Rectification . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Trade Marks – Ex Parte Decisions . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
IPO Ex Parte. . .
Objection that mark is customary within the trade. . .
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
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
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
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 . .
Leave to appeal – findings of trade mark infringement – liability as joint tortfeasor.
Held: Recorder’s judgment faultless – leave refused. . .
Neuberger J approved the statement of Jacob J as to comparative marketing. . .
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. . .
. .
. .
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. . .
