Appeal – EU trade mark – Whether appeals may be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Request failing to demonstrate a significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed
C-61/20, [2020] EUECJ C-61/20P_CO
European
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.660174
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark HELIX ELIXIR – Earlier EU word mark HELIXOR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
ECLI:EU:T:2020:617, T-883/19, [2020] EUECJ T-883/19
European
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.660726
European Union trade mark – Opposition proceedings – European Union word mark application PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD – Earlier European Union word marks GALLIMARD – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Conceptual comparison – Names patronymics – Autonomous distinctive position – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001]
ECLI:EU:T:2020:632, T-863/19, [2020] EUECJ T-863/19
European
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.660746
In testing whether a defence to copyright infringement of fair dealing succeeds, the court can take note of the actual purpose of the work, and will look carefully to verify the claimed purpose: ‘it is necessary to have regard to the true purpose of the work. Is it a genuine piece of criticism or review, or is it something else, such as an attempt to dress up the infringement of another’s copyright in the guise of criticism, and so profit unfairly from another’s work?’
Henry LJ
[1994] EMLR 1
England and Wales
Confirmed – 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 . .
Cited – Fraser-Woodward Ltd v British Broadcasting Corporation Brighter Pictures Ltd ChD 23-Mar-2005
The claimant asserted infringement of copyright by the defendants in photographs of the family of David Beckham. The defendant admitted using the photographs but asserted that no permission was required since the use was a fair dealing.
Held: . .
Cited – Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland, News Group Newspapers Ltd, News International Ltd, Murrell CA 10-Feb-2000
The court considered a dispute about ownership and confidence in and copyright of of video tapes taken by Princess Diana before her death.
Held: The courts have an inherent discretion to refuse to enforce of copyright. When assessing whether . .
Cited – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others ChD 26-Nov-2010
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they . .
Cited – Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd ChD 11-Jan-2001
The claimant, during his career had written private diaries, including minutes of secret political meetings. As he stepped down from leadership, he began to arrange publication. Before this was complete, the defendant published extracts. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.223814
The court said that in patents cases, the primary evidence will be the opinion evidence of properly qualified expert witnesses, all other evidence being secondary to that primary evidence.
[1994] RPC 49
England and Wales
Cited – Seb SAa v Societe De’Longhi Spa CA 4-Jul-2003
The claimant’s action for patent infringement had been dismissed on the basis that the patent was invalid for obviousness.
Held: There was material before the judge on which he could properly conclude as he did on the presence of common . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.184326
An injunction was granted to restrain the labelling of a sparkling fruit (Elderflower Champagne) non-alcoholic drink made in Surrey to include the word ‘champagne’. The trial judge had held that all the necessary ingredients for a successful passing off action had been made out save for proof of likelihood of substantial damage to the plaintiff.
Held: the plaintiff argued that if the defendant continued to call its product ‘Elderflower Champagne’, ‘. . . the effect would be to demolish the distinctiveness the word champagne, and that would inevitably damage the goodwill of the champagne houses.’ Peter Gibson LJ: By parity of reasoning it seems to me no less obvious that erosion of the distinctiveness of the name champagne in this country is a form of damage to the goodwill of the business of the champagne houses.’ and as to CIVC, he said that Sir Robin Cooke ‘thought the [Champagne] case exemplified the principle that a tendency to impair distinctiveness might lead to an inference of damage to goodwill . . .’
‘Like the judge, I do not think the defendants’ product would reduce the first plaintiffs’ sales in any significant and direct way. But that is not, as it seems to me, the end of the matter. The first plaintiffs’ reputation and goodwill in the description Champagne derive not only from the quality of their wine and its glamorous associations, but also from the very singularity and exclusiveness of the description, the absence of any qualifying epithets and imitative descriptions. Any product which is not Champagne but is allowed to describe itself as such must inevitably, in my view, erode the singularity and exclusiveness of the description Champagne and so cause the first plaintiffs damage of an insidious but serious kind. The amount of damage which the defendants’ product would cause would of course depend on the size of the defendants’ operation. That is not negligible now, and it could become much bigger. But I cannot see, despite the defendants’ argument to the contrary, any rational basis upon which, if the defendants’ product were allowed to be marketed under its present description, any other fruit cordial diluted with carbonated water could not be similarly marketed so as to incorporate the description champagne. The damage to the first plaintiffs would then be incalculable but severe.’
Peter Gibson LJ
Independent 30-Jun-1993, Times 28-Jun-1993, [1993] FSR 641
England and Wales
Cited – Sean Sweeney, Graham Edward Camps v Macmillan Publishers Limited, Danis Rose ChD 22-Nov-2001
The claimants were trustees of the estate of James Joyce, and complained at the publication of unpublished parts of the work Ulysses in a readers edition by the defendants. Published works are protected for fifty years after the author’s death, but . .
Cited – Chocosuisse, Kraft Jacobs Suchard (Schweiz) Ag, Chocoladefabriken Lindt and Sprungli (Schweiz) Ag v Cadbury Limited PatC 29-Oct-1997
The plaintiffs brought actions in passing off against the defendant company in respect of their chocolate products. They objected to the use of the terms ‘Swiss Chocolate’ applied to chocolates not made in Switzerland.
Held: The claimant had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.89691
Where claimant files dual claims in UK and Europe, UK Patent may be revoked.
Ind Summary 22-Nov-1993
England and Wales
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.85832
A long technical Patents trial is more suited to the High Court than the County Court.
Ind Summary 28-Mar-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.84468
The special jurisdiction with regard to patents required the court to have a purposive approach.
Times 12-Jan-1994
England and Wales
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.83520
EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – European Union figurative mark green cycles – Genuine use of the mark – Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Article 10(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 – Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character – Lack of use of the sign as a company logo
T-78/19, [2020] EUECJ T-78/19, ECLI:EU:T:2020:166
European
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.660143
European Union trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – European Union word mark easyCosmetic – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive nature – Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001
ECLI:EU:T:2020:598, T-858/19, [2020] EUECJ T-858/19
European
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.660712
Mr Justice Marcus Smith
[2020] EWHC 28 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.648534
[2015] UKIntelP o10815
England and Wales
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.545537
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights to trade within Europe.
Held: The rules were potentially a breach of the claimants rights to trade, and an interim injunction was granted to prevent their imposition: ‘Articles 81 and 82 contain competition rules of the European Community. They are of direct effect and impose on all undertakings to which they apply external constraints as to what they may do. If it is alleged that the ITF is in breach of either Article then it is the duty of the court to scrutinise its activities of which complaint is made and, if the case is made out, to give judgment against it. The principles applicable to decisions of domestic regulatory sporting bodies who are not in breach of either Article are not in point. But even if the latter principles did apply the discriminatory enforcement of sporting rules based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the rule required, which Adidas submits is the case here, would entitle the court to interfere. ‘
The Chancellor of the High Court
[2006] EWHC 1318 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc, Elitegroup Computer Systems (UK) Ltd Via Technologies Inc , Via Technologies (Europe) Ltd, Realtime Distribution Ltd CA 20-Dec-2002
Infringement of patents.
Held: With regard in particular to competition law claims (or defences), where the area of law is in the course of development the court should be cautious ‘to assume that it is beyond argument with real prospect of . .
Cited – Bradley v The Jockey Club CA 12-Jul-2005
The Jockey had been disqualified from riding for five years for breaches of the club’s rules. He said the punishment was disproportionate in effectively preventing him working for a living.
Held: The appeal failed, and the judge’s analysis was . .
Cited – Bavarian Lager Co Ltd v DTI 2002
The court was asked to enforce a beer tie agreement.
Held: The court refused summarily to dismiss the claim on the ground, as claimed by the defendant, that it was contrary to Article 28 EC Treaty as amounting to a quantitative restriction on . .
Cited – B N O Walrave And L J N Koch v Association Union Cycliste Internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie Et Federacion Espanola Ciclismo ECJ 12-Dec-1974
ECJ The practice of sport is subject to community law only in so far as it constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of article 2 of the Treaty. The prohibition of discrimination based on nationality in . .
Cited – Ferlini v Centre hospitalier de Luxembourg ECJ 3-Oct-2000
ECJ A national of one Member State working in another Member State does not lose his status of worker within the meaning of Article 48(1) of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(1) EC) through occupying a . .
Cited – Aeroports de Paris v Commission ECFI 12-Dec-2000
ECJ Competition – Air transport – Airport management – Applicable regulation – Regulation No 17 and Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 – Abuse of dominant position – Discriminatory fees.
The burden on Aeroports de . .
Cited – Albany International BV v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie ECJ 21-Sep-1999
ECJ Compulsory affiliation to a sectoral pension scheme – Compatibility with competition rules – Classification of a sectoral pension fund as an undertaking. . .
Cited – Piau v Commission ECFI 26-Jan-2005
Europa Reglement de la Federation internationale de football association (FIFA) gouvernant l’activite des agents de joueurs – Decision d’une association d’entreprises – Articles 49 CE, 81 CE et 82 CE – Plainte – . .
Cited – Hydrotherm Geratebau gmbh v Compact del Dott Ing Mario andreoli and c Sas ECJ 12-Jul-1984
Europa In competition law, the term ‘ undertaking ‘ must be understood as designating an economic unit for the purposes of the subject-matter of the agreement in question even if in law that economic unit . .
Cited – Gaetano Dona v Mario Mantero ECJ 14-Jul-1976
Europa Discrimination based upon nationality – prohibition – matches between professional sportsmen – exclusion – infringement of articles 48 to 51 or 59 to 66 of the EEC treaty – restrictions in the case of . .
Cited – Deliege v Ligue Francophone De Judo et Disciplines Associees Asbl and Others ECJ 11-Apr-2000
It was not an unlawful discriminatory provision to restrict those who might take part in professional sports activities in another member state to be first authorised or selected by their own national federation where such competition was not on a . .
Cited – Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v Federation royale belge des societes de basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) ECJ 13-Apr-2000
Europa The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the national court define the factual and legal context of the questions it is . .
Cited – Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2004
ECJ Competition – Freedom to provide services – Anti-doping legislation adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Purely sporting legislation
The claimants were athletes who complained that . .
Cited – A Ahlstrom Osakeyhtio And Others v Commission Of The European Communities ECJ 27-Sep-1988
The court considered the territorial scope of Articles 81 and 82. in the context of producers outside the Community selling to purchasers established in the Community. The external producers had engaged in price fixing and therefore restricted . .
Cited – Gencor Ltd v Commission ECFI 25-Mar-1999
ECFI Council Regulation 4064/89, Article 2(3) provided that there should be declared to be incompatible with the common market: ‘A concentration which creates or strengthens a dominant position as a result of . .
Cited – Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports and others v Commission ECJ 16-Mar-2000
ECJ It is clear from the very wording of Articles 85(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) and 86(a) to (d) of the Treaty (now Articles 81(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e) EC and 82(a) to (d) EC) that the same practice may give rise to . .
Cited – NWL Ltd v Woods HL 1979
The phrase ‘trade dispute’ was defined by reference to (i) the parties to it and (ii) the subject matter. Lord Scarman referred to the legislative history of attempts to regulate strike actions by trades unions: ‘It is wrong to attempt to construe . .
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited – Cayne and Another v Global Natural Resources Plc ChD 12-Aug-1982
The court gave this example of the legitimate use of the directors’ powers to defeat a take-over: ‘If Company A and Company B are in business competition, and Company A acquires a large holding of shares in Company B with the object of running . .
Cited – Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board HL 1984
In English law a breach of statutory duty, is actionable as such by a private individual to whom loss or damage is caused by a breach of that duty. Lord Diplock said that it was quite unarguable: ‘that if such a contravention of Article 86 gives . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.242355
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no copyright or confidentiality existed, but only that there was no evidence that they had infringed any such right.
Held: As to the first two claims, the appeal succeeded, but the third had a real prospect of success and should be allowed to go to trial. When considering an application for summary judgment the following principles should be applied: (a) the applicant must show that the respondent’s case has no real prospect of success at trial; (b) a ‘real’ prospect of success is one which is more than fanciful and merely arguable; (c) if it is clear beyond question that the respondent will not be able at trial to establish the facts on which he relies then his prospects of success are not real; (d) the court is not entitled, on an application for summary judgment, to conduct a trial on the documents without disclosure or cross-examination.
Sir Andrew Morritt V-C
[2004] EWHC 2362 (Ch)
England and Wales
Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Cited – E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another CA 4-Apr-2003
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success.
Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of . .
Cited – Henderson v Henderson 20-Jul-1843
Abuse of Process and Re-litigation
The court set down the principles to be applied in abuse of process cases, where a matter was raised again which should have been dealt with in earlier proceedings.
Sir James Wigram VC said: ‘In trying this question I believe I state the rule . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited – Ashton and Another v Securum Finance Ltd CA 21-Jun-2000
In the new litigation culture it was correct to strike out a second action which fundamentally re-litigated a case which had previously been struck out on the grounds of abuse of process or delay. The court’s case management required it to consider . .
Cited – Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing Plc and Another ChD 14-Oct-2010
The claimant sought damages alleging breach of copyright by the defendant author saying she had copied large parts of the claimant’s work in her book ‘Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire’. The defendant now sought summary judgment, saying the action . .
Cited – Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville ChD 31-Jul-2013
The claimant company’s administrators sought an order to have vacated unilateral notices entered against land titles registered to the claimant. The court now gave its reasons for making the order as requested by way of summary relief. The notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.216640
Patent infringement.
Pumfrey J
[2004] EWHC 2992 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.231586
The claimant sought enforcement of a contract restricting the use by the appellant defendant of the initials ‘WWF’ in their trading. The agreement had been reached in settlement of an action for breach of the claimant’s trade mark rights. The claimant was particularly concerned as to the injurious association with the respondent, and its use of the mark on the Internet.
Held: The scratch logo used by the federation was a clear breach. They had not seriously sought to argue that they were not in breach of the agreement. The protection of the intellectual property rights of one business inevitably implies some restriction on the rights of others with potentially conflicting interests. There was no undue interference in the freedom of the defendant to trade. The breaches were clear, and the agreement was to be upheld. Appeal against summary judgement dismissed.
Lord Phillips M.R., Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath
Times 12-Mar-2002, Gazette 11-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 196
England and Wales
Cited – Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) HL 22-Mar-2001
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness
The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI.
Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also . .
Appeal from – WWF -World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), World Wildlife Fund Inc v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc ChD 1-Oct-2001
The Fund sought summary relief against the use of the sign ‘WWF’ by the defendants, in breach of a contract. The defendants urged that the contract operated in restraint of trade. There had been long running and widespread trade mark disputes, . .
See Also – World Wide Fund for Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund), World Wildlife Fund Incorporated v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Incorporated – Intervener Jakks Pacific Llc CA 27-Mar-2003
. .
See Also – WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature and Another v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc ChD 16-Feb-2006
. .
See Also – WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and Another v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc CA 2-Apr-2007
The parties had disputed use of the initals WWF, with a compromise reached in 1994 allowing primary use by the Fund with restricted use by the Federation. The Federation now appealed an award of damages made after a finding of a breach of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.167702
Trade Mark: Ex Parte
Mrs C Bennett
[2019] UKIntelP o44019
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660998
EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark bim ready – Earlier EU figurative mark BIM freelance – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Restriction of the services covered by the mark applied for)
ECLI:EU:T:2020:596, T-819/19, [2020] EUECJ T-819/19
European
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660738
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Identical marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word and device marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Importance of first element
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Distinctive Character of Earlier Trade Mark – Any unusual issues
Procedural Issues – Costs – litigants in person, actual, security for
Mr C Bowen
[2019] UKIntelP o49719
England and Wales
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.661040
Judgment on the trial of part of the claim for a final injunction and damages in respect of the alleged accessing, retention and deployment by the defendants of emails said to be private and confidential to the claimants and held within three email accounts.
HHJ Paul Matthews
[2021] EWHC 671 (Ch)
England and Wales
See Also – Brake and Another v Guy and Others (Preliminary Issue) ChD 25-Mar-2021
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660067
(United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit) ‘priority of trademark rights in the United States depends solely upon priority of use in the United States, not on priority of use anywhere in the world. Earlier use in another country usually just does not count’
Kleinfeld and Graber, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge
(2004) 391 F3d 1088, [2004] USCA9 814
United States
Cited – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.566021
ECJ Judgment – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark representing a boy on a bicycle holding a mallet – Earlier Community and national figurative marks representing a polo player – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009
S Frimodt Nielsen, P
T-265/13, [2014] EUECJ T-265/13, ECLI:EU:T:2014:779
Regulation No 207/2009 8(1)(b) 8(5)
European
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.537071
The opponent owns registrations for the marks SHAKER, SHAKER’S, SHAKERS, SHAKERS SMOOTHIE and SHAKERS SMOOVIES in respect of alcoholic beverages and cocktails in Class 33. It also stated that it had used the marks SHAKERS SMOOVIE and SHAKERS SCHNAPPS in relation to the sale of alcoholic products in the UK but no evidence of sales was provided. A sample label for the product SHAKERS SMOOVIE showed the contents to include white rum, blackcurrant, raspberry and milk.
The applicant proposed to use its SHAKERS mark in respect of ‘Milk beverages, milk shakes and flavoured milks, not containing alcohol. The applicant provided dictionary references for SHAKE and SHAKER and submitted that SHAKER might be taken as a reference to milk shake but in relation to alcoholic products would most likely be seen as a reference to a cocktail shaker.
At the outset to the hearing the opponent sought to add additional grounds under Sections 3(1)(c) and 5(3) because of comments made in the applicant’s submissions. The Hearing Officer rejected the request because it had been made at such a late stage in the proceedings. In addition the opponent had filed no evidence to support the allegation of descriptiveness under Section 3(1)(c) or any evidence of use of its marks to show that it could sustain a ground of objection under Section 5(3).
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer accepted that identical and similar marks were at issue and went on to compare the respective goods. In view of the fact that certain cocktails are made with milk as an ingredient, and could be made available to the consumer pre-mixed, the Hearing Officer concluded that the alcoholic – non-alcoholic factor was insufficient to distinguish milk based beverages as to their nature or the way in which the products are used. The Hearing Officer went on to conclude that the respective goods were similar and that taking an overall view of the matter the public could be deceived as to origin. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
The Section 5(4)(a) ground was not considered but the Hearing Officer observed that it was unlikely to have succeeded because of a lack of evidence to show the opponent had a reputation and goodwill in its marks.
Mr M Foley
[2005] UKIntelP o07005
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456260
The Hearing Officer commented upon the stylization of the mark as advertised – with a lowercase ‘i’ and noted that this appeared to be at odds with the mark depicted on the application form. However, nothing turned on this point and he treated the mark as the word RAINYSEASON.
The opponent (hereafter referred to as Outdoor) owns the mark RAINY DAYS (series of 2) in Class 25 in respect of identical and similar goods as those of the applicant. Outdoor claimed to have adopted the marks RAINY DAYS in February 2002 and claimed a turnover of some pounds 500k in respect of goods sold under the mark up to 23 August 2003 (the date of application of the mark in suit). A sample invoice, sample packaging and a RAINY DAYS branded kagoul were also provided.
Outdoor also referred to the fact that there was a business relationship with the applicant up until early 2003 when it had adopted the mark RAINYSEASON. Thereafter, relations became strained.
The applicant (hereafter referred to as Jalf) claimed in its counterstatement to have used the mark RAINYSEASON from 1992 onwards. It also claimed to have used the mark RAINY DAYS in 1994, 1999-2000 and in 2001. Outdoor was aware of this use when it applied to register its mark on 14 July 2003. Jalf also submitted that the mark RAINYDAYS and RAINYSEASON had the same meaning and were in fact similar. Jalf filed no evidence to support these claims.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks RAINY DAYS and RAINSEASON. He decided that they were conceptually similar and liable to be confused on the basis of imperfect recollection. He also noted the admission made by the applicant that the respective marks were similar. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
In view of his finding under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer saw no need to consider the grounds under Sections 5(4)(a) and 3(6). He observed, however, that Outdoor’s evidence was such that it was unlikely that it would have succeeded on these latter two grounds.
Mr D Landau
[2005] UKIntelP o06205
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456259
Following the withdrawal of the application by the patent applicants, it was decided to make no order for revocation of the patent.
Mr D McMunn
[2005] UKIntelP o08605
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456263
The opponent had requested that certain exhibits in their evidence be treated as confidential and not open to inspection by the public or the applicant. There was no objection to their being disclosed to the applicant’s advisors.
A hearing was arranged to consider this request, following which the Hearing Officer ruled that the exhibits could remain confidential in accordance with the opponent’s wishes.
The applicant asked for a written statement of the Hearing Officer’s reasons. These are set out in this decision.
Mrs A Corbett
[2005] UKIntelP o05905
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456262
The application relates to an Internet lottery game in which the usual numbers are replaced with brand representations of commercial products or services. The invention allows products or services to be advertised to players playing the game and for the lottery operator to charge the brand owner for the privilege. It was argued that the substance of the invention was an apparatus for playing a game and was not excluded by section 1(2). The Hearing Officer found that the substance of the invention was the mere presentation of information which fell within the section 1(2)(d) exclusion. He failed to find a technical contribution that would make such an excluded invention patentable.
Mr H Jones
[2005] UKIntelP o06405
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456261
In his interim decision dated 11 November 2004 (BL O/348/04) the Appointed Person had stated, setting aside the Hearing Officer’s decision, that it had been irregularly made since the Hearing Officer had exercised the discretion under Rule 31(3) of the Trade Mark Rules 2000, adversely to the registered proprietor without giving the registered proprietor the opportunity to be heard as required by Rule 54. Subsequently, the registered proprietor sought an order for costs against the Registrar.
The background to the issue of the decision of the Hearing Officer was that the registered proprietor had not responded when a copy of the application for revocation was sent to it. Consequently, no counterstatement or evidence of use of its mark was filed by the registered proprietor. In his interim decision the Appointed Person considered that the most likely explanation for the failure to respond was that a card from the Royal Mail about a failed attempt to deliver the application by recorded delivery had been overlooked and/or become attached to other delivery items which had been disposed of. In the circumstances, of this case, the Appointed Person did not consider that it would be right to require the Registrar to pay the registered proprietor’s costs of the appeal.
In his earlier decision the Appointed Person had allowed the registered proprietor twenty-eight days to file the necessary documentation and evidence of use and it had now done so. The proceedings are therefore back on track.
Mr Richard Arnold QC
[2005] UKIntelP o08005
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456255
At a preliminary hearing in revocation and amendment proceedings, the defendant (Trek) requested that the substantive hearing be postponed in view of deficiencies in the claimant’s (M-Systems) statement of case, namely that:
a) the pleadings were in general in a mess, and
b) PCT application WO 00/42491 had not been properly pleaded against novelty
The hearing officer refused to postpone the substantive hearing acknowledging that
a) although the pleadings were unfocussed, the defendant knew the case that it had to answer; and
b) although the document in question had not been explicitly pleaded against novelty from the outset, the defendant should have been well aware of its importance, and in any case had addressed the issue of its relevance to novelty in the counterstatement
Other issues addressed:
a request by the claimant for documents obtained by disclosure in related proceedings in Singapore with withdrawn at the hearing
the defendant’s submission that, through an irregularity in procedure by the Patent Office, it had not been given an opportunity to address the novelty issue regarding WO 00/42491, was held – even if valid – not to have materially prejudiced its case in the circumstances.
Mr D J Barford
[2005] UKIntelP o04505
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456256
The application relates to a computerised method for creating the required legal documents to incorporate a business entity using a data processing system. The computer is programmed to ask questions of a user, the answers to which determine further questions to be answered. This process is repeated until the user has provided enough information to allow the computer to generate the documents by merging document templates with the users answers.
The HO considered that the invention claimed related to an ‘expert system’ in that, by providing a guided question session and giving expert advice in the sense of creating the necessary documents, the computer was standing in for a human legal advisor. She held that the invention was therefore a method of performing a mental act, a method for doing business and a computer program and that there was no technical contribution that would prevent its exclusion from patentability Wang Laboratories Incs Application [1991] RPC 463 followed.
[2005] UKIntelP o07805
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456257
The opposition was based on two Community Trade Mark registrations in Classes 22, 24 and 25 of the marks ESCORPION and ES de ESCORPION.
Whilst these marks did not enjoy a significant reputation in the UK they were inherently highly distinctive in relation to the goods and were deserving of a wide penumbra of protection, said the Hearing Officer, and it was obvious that the respective specifications included identical and closely similar goods.
The Hearing Officer went on to make a detailed comparison of the marks, following which, and on a global appreciation, he found no likelihood of confusion.
The opposition failed accordingly.
Mr J MacGillivray
[2005] UKIntelP o07105
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456258
The opponent owns a number of registrations for the marks BEN SHERMAN and BEN SHERMAN (in script) in Classes 3, 16, 24 and 25. It also filed evidence of use over an extended period and with a significant turnover. The Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had a significant reputation in relation to shirts and more recently there has been some extension of the business into other areas of the clothing market. Mr Ben Sherman commenced the opponent company in 1963 but left it some years ago. He is now deceased.
The applicant also filed evidence. Mr Sugarman is a member of the same family as the late Ben Sherman (it would appear that some members of the family changed their name to Sherman) and he appears to claim some rights in the name Ben Sherman. Indeed he offered to licence the mark in suit to the opponent company. In the mark in suit the words ‘Ben Sherman merchandising’ are shown in almost identical script as that used by the opponent in its BEN SHERMAN marks.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer accepted that the respective marks were very closely similar in view of the presence of the name BEN SHERMAN, the script writing used and the portrait of the late Ben Sherman. However, the only link between the goods of the opponent and the services of the applicant was printed matter in Class 16 which was similar to book and magazine publishing services in Class 41. Opposition under Section 5(2)(b) thus succeeded only in respect of these services.
Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer noted the opponent’s significant reputation and the similarity of the respective marks. There was also the nature of the mark in suit to be considered particularly as it included the word ‘merchandising’. There was little doubt that the public would associate the respective marks and the presence of the word ‘merchandising’ would add to the association with the opponent even where the goods and services were not similar. The Hearing Officer went on to find that the opponent succeeded on this ground.
The Hearing Officer did not reach a concluded decision on the Section 5(4)(a) ground (in view of his decision under Section 5(3)) but he did consider the matter in detail and his review strongly suggests that if he had reached a decision on this ground, his decision would have been in favour of the opponent.
As regards the ground under Section 3(6), the Hearing Officer believed that the applicant must have been aware of the reputation of the Ben Sherman Group and their use and reputation in the script version of the BEN SHERMAN mark. That being the case the applicant must have been aware of possible conflict when he adopted the mark in suit and in particular use of the BEN SHERMAN name in script form. The whole mark which included the word ‘Merchandising’ was calculated to convey an association with the Ben Sherman Group (the Opponent) when this was not the case. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
Mr M Reynolds
[2005] UKIntelP o10005
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456270
The opposition was based on the mark THINK PINK and device, registered in Classes 25 and 28.
The opponent had filed only ‘the briefest evidence’ relating to its trade. Hence the Hearing Officer quickly dismissed the objections which required such evidence, ie Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a). The matter was therefore reduced to Section 5(2)(b); and there could be no claim of an enhanced degree of distinctive character by reason of use.
Comparing the marks the Hearing Officer concluded that they were ‘similar to a high degree’.
The application in suit specified, inter alia, ‘Bags none being adapted for use in rock/mountain climbing; evening bags; purses; umbrellas and parasols’. The opponent sought the removal of ‘bags none being adapted for use in rock/mountain climbing; evening bags’ which, they claimed were in conflict with the goods in their Class 28 specification, ‘Sporting articles (other than clothing) adapted for use in rock and/or mountain climbing’.
In previous proceedings between the parties (see BL O/484/02 (PDF file 62 Kb)) the Hearing Officer had found that ‘sporting articles’ included bags adapted for or to convey sporting articles and that such goods clashed with bags generally. The attempted exclusion in this case did not remove that clash and the Hearing Officer therefore ruled that these should be removed from the applicant’s specification. There was no valid objection to the evening bags, however. Both sides achieved a measure of success, the Hearing Officer made no order as to costs.
Mr M Reynolds
[2005] UKIntelP o00105
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456202
The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of a Community registration of the mark Watson’s, a device and Chinese characters in Classes 3, 5 and 42. The opponent filed evidence from the internet which showed that there are ten pharmacies in the UK trading under the name WATSON but no-one else had applied to register a mark containing that name in relation to pharmacy services or products.
The applicant also filed evidence of use of its mark and claimed the benefit of the honest concurrent use provisions of Section 7.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Office compared the goods and services of the applicant with those of the opponent and noted that identical and very similar goods and services were at issue. As regards the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted that both marks contained the word WATSON and Watson’s, very similar Chinese characters and the only real difference lay in the respective device elements. The Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were similar since both would likely be remembered as consisting of an English surname combined with Chinese characters.
In relation to the applicant’s honest concurrent use claim the Hearing Officer noted that the evidence filed by the applicant was not well documented but even assuming there had been use by the applicant the opponent had filed no details of use of its mark. There was therefore no concurrent use to consider in the terms described in Section 7 of the Act.
In summary the Hearing Officer concluded that in the context of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act there was a likelihood of confusion of the public and that opposition on this ground succeeded.
Mr G Salthouse
[2005] UKIntelP o00405
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456205
[2005] UKIntelP o00805
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456198
The application relates to a method for providing a user of an electronic trademark filing system with an indication of the costs associated with the various options (territories, classes etc) they have selected. The calculation is carried out in real time such that the user is able to see immediately the cost implications when changes are made to any of those options. In refusing the application as a method of doing business, a computer program and a mental act, the application was found to lie squarely in the field of business. Moreover it was considered to be a computerisation using conventional programming techniques of a previously mental process that could be performed using pen and paper.
The hearing officer also explored a number of matters of principle which were raised. The approach of the UK courts in Fujitsu takes precedence over more recent EPO decisions. There is no substantial difference in what is patentable between the EPO and the UK. The TRIPS treaty is not directly effective and has not changed what is considered patentable in the UK.
Mr A Bartlett
[2005] UKIntelP o02705
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456197
[2005] UKIntelP o02305
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456200
The claimant requested an extension of four weeks (from 17/1/2005 to 14/2/2005) to the period to file evidence in reply because it fell within the Christmas – New Year holiday period and the responsible person was away until 6/1/2005); the defendant would only concede a week’s extension. In a decision on the papers, the hearing officer allowed an extension to 3/2/2005, thus giving the claimant four weeks from the date of return of the responsible person.
Mr R C Kennell
[2005] UKIntelP o37804
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456187
The comptroller no longer has jurisdiction to extend the period for filing an appellants notice at the High Court – see Patent Office Practice Notice 1/2003 at [2003] RPC 46. However, the hearing officer held that, owing to an anomaly in the Civil Procedure Rules, he did have jurisdiction to direct the period within which the respondents notice should be filed. Having considered the facts, he directed that the respondents notice be filed within three weeks, rather than the default period of two weeks that would otherwise have applied.
Mr P Hayward
[2005] UKIntelP o00905
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.456201
Jacob LJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 29
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.223224
The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on costs. The Copyright Tribunal was wrong to award costs on an award to settle the terms of a license on the basis of costs following the event. The discretion and duties to allow for all factors were rather wider.
The court considered the approach to be taken on an appeal. Lord Woolf MR said ‘Before the court can interfere it must be shown that the judge has either erred in principle in his approach or has left out of account or has taken into account some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that his decision was wholly wrong because the court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale.’
The court considered the ability of an appellate court to review a decision of a first instance judge on matters with his discretion.
Woolf MR, Mummery LJ, Mantell LJ
Gazette 24-Mar-1999, Times 03-Mar-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1507, [1999] EWCA Civ 834, [1999] 2 All ER 299, [1999] EMLR 335, [1999] CPLR 551, [1999] RPC 599
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 135D 135E
England and Wales
Appeal from – Phonographic Performance Ltd v AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd ChD 14-Jul-1997
An authorisation to broadcast sound recording included right to make back up tapes, but not to keep that back up beyond 28 days. Broadcasters are bound by an obligation to destroy copies of material which had been used for broadcast within 28 days . .
Cited – Budgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership CA 31-Jul-2002
The defendant firm of solicitors appealed an order for costs against it based upon a percentage calculation. They sought an issues based costs order.
Held: Where there was insufficient information upon which to calculate an issues based costs . .
Cited – Price v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
Cited – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 14-Dec-2004
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to . .
Cited – Agulian and Another v Cyganik CA 24-Feb-2006
The question was whether the deceased had lost his domicile of birth and acquired one of choice when living and working in the UK for 43 years. He had retained land in Cyprus, but lived here.
Held: He had retained his domicile of birth: . .
Cited – K v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another QBD 30-May-2008
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim in negligence. He had leaped from a window in a suicide attempt. The accommodation was provided by the defendant whilst caring for him under the 1983 Act.
Held: The case should be . .
Cited – St Albans Girls School and Another v Neary CA 12-Nov-2009
The claimant’s case had been struck out after non-compliance with an order to file further particulars. His appeal was allowed by the EAT, and the School now itself appealed, saying that the employment judge had wrongly had felt obliged to have . .
Cited – Shaw and Another v MFP Foundations and Piling Ltd ChD 6-Jan-2010
The defendants appealed against a refusal to set aside statutory demands adjudicated due under the 1996 Act. They said that the judge had accepted that he was bound by MFO and that it was on all fours, but he had not followed it.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.119308
EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark BASIC – Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG – Relative grounds for refusal – Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance – Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Declaration of partial invalidity – Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court – Referral of the case back to a Board of Appeal – Lack of competence of the authority referring the case – Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 – Cross-claim
ECLI:EU:T:2020:592, T-722/18, [2020] EUECJ T-722/18
European
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.660749
[2020] EWHC 198 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.648543
Allegation of trade mark infringement
Kelyn Bacon QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
[2020] EWHC 124 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.648531
Application for a stay of proceedings which allege breach of copyright.
[2014] EWHC 1398 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.525148
[2011] UKIntelP o43511
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458596
[2011] UKIntelP o45711
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458595
Trade Mark: Opposition
[2011] UKIntelP o44011
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458594
[2011] UKIntelP o46211
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458593
[2011] UKIntelP o45911
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458591
[2011] UKIntelP o44211
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458592
[2011] UKIntelP o43011
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458573
[2011] UKIntelP o44111
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458584
Trade Mark: Opposition
[2011] UKIntelP o43911
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458572
[2011] UKIntelP o44711
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458581
[2011] UKIntelP o46511
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458564
[2011] UKIntelP o43211
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458571
[2011] UKIntelP o46911
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458582
[2011] UKIntelP o44811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458568
[2011] UKIntelP o43311
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458578
[2011] UKIntelP o46811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458583
[2011] UKIntelP o44911
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458566
[2011] UKIntelP o46711
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458589
[2011] UKIntelP o46111
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458576
Trade Mark: Revocation
[2011] UKIntelP o43611
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458565
[2011] UKIntelP o43411
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458588
[2011] UKIntelP o46011
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458567
Trade Mark: Revocation
[2011] UKIntelP o45011
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458580
[2011] UKIntelP o47111
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458586
[2011] UKIntelP o46611
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458574
[2011] UKIntelP o45811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458587
[2011] UKIntelP o40311
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458548
[2011] UKIntelP o40811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458552
[2011] UKIntelP o39911
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458559
[2011] UKIntelP o40711
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458547
[2011] UKIntelP o39611
England and Wales
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458558
[2011] UKIntelP o41411
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458546
[2011] UKIntelP o41511
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458557
[2011] UKIntelP o40911
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458556
[2011] UKIntelP o41111
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458544
Dispute as to registration of mark.
[2011] UKIntelP o43811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458562
[2011] UKIntelP o39711
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458555
[2011] UKIntelP o38811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458543
[2011] UKIntelP o38911
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458554
[2011] UKIntelP o40211
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458542
[2011] UKIntelP o42311
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458550
[2011] UKIntelP o38211
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458553
[2011] UKIntelP o37811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458551
[2011] UKIntelP o43711
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458563
[2011] UKIntelP o42011
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458549
[2011] UKIntelP o46411
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458560
[2011] UKIntelP o40411
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458525
[2011] UKIntelP o38711
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458522
[2011] UKIntelP o42811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458539
[2011] UKIntelP o38311
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458534
[2011] UKIntelP o39011
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458533
[2011] UKIntelP o41811
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458535