The parties each made cable mechanisms for cars. There had been a patent dispute in Germany resulting in a finding of infringement, which finding was subject to appeal. A letter was sent in England referring to the German decision, stating that the company intended to enforce its rights.
Held: In considering whether it was arguable that the letter complained of was a threat, the court had to acknowledge that: ‘a threat can be veiled or implied just as much as it can be explicit.’ Aldous J said: ‘I believe that the purpose of the letter was to give [the recipient] information and a warning. That requires the answer: a warning as to what?’ The test is whether the communication would be understood by the ordinary recipient in the position of the claimant as constituting a threat of proceedings for infringement. The recipients would properly interpret the letter as a threat, and the threats were wider than enforcement for sale or supply. The balance of convenience lay in granting an interim injunction.
Aldous J
[1990] RPC 427
Patents Act 1977 70(4)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – L’Oreal (UK) Limited and Another v Johnson and Johnson and Another ChD 7-Mar-2000
The claimant appealed against an order striking out their threat action for trade mark infringement, in respect of the words ‘No Tears’ when used for children’s shampoo.
Held: The court had to consider both the letter and the surrounding . .
Cited – Scandecor Development Ab v Scandecor Marketing Ab and Another (No 2) CA 7-Oct-1998
Actions for passing off and Trade Mark infringement tended to end up as factual disputes resolvable only after a full enquiry. ‘Not a branch of law in which references to these cases is of an real assistance.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.180657