Click the case name for better results:

Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd: ChD 15 Jul 1994

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

Roche Products Ltd and Another v Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd: CA 20 Dec 2006

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

E A Grimstead and Son Limited v McGarrigan: CA 13 Oct 1998

Judges: Chadwick LJ Citations: [1998] EWCA Civ 1523 Statutes: Misrepresentation Act 1967 3 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd ChD 15-Jul-1994 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 … Continue reading E A Grimstead and Son Limited v McGarrigan: CA 13 Oct 1998

Six Continents Hotels Inc v Event Hotels Gmbh: QBD 21 Sep 2006

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

Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading Sa v TMT Asia Ltd: CA 15 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

Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc: ChD 29 Jun 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

Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd: ChD 24 Jan 2007

Both parties used the name ‘Elle’ in their respective products, a women’s magazine, and handknitting yarns. They disputed the registration of a trade mark for the latter in the UK. Held: The court endorsed the continuing applicabiity of the guidelines in Reef when a court was asked to upset a decision of a lower but … Continue reading Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd: ChD 24 Jan 2007

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of time. Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘ the long-standing rule of practice … Continue reading Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd: ChD 16 Feb 2006

L’Oreal Sa and others v Bellure NV and others: ChD 4 Oct 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

Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport: ECJ 11 Nov 1997

The test of whether a sign is confusing is how the use of the sign would be perceived by the average consumer of the type of goods in question. ‘The likelihood of confusion must therefore be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. That global appreciation of the … Continue reading Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport: ECJ 11 Nov 1997

Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton Television Ltd and Another: CA 7 Jan 1999

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

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

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