Category: Intellectual Property

Guepard Device (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 9 Jul 1998

Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition

Judges:

Mr M Reynolds

Citations:

OPP 34995 / 34996 / 34997 / 35, 1482816, 1485813, 1485814, 148, [1998] UKIntelP o14598

Links:

PO, IPO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Guepard GG (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 8-Nov-2001
Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.453235

Easygroup Ltd v Empresa Aerea De Servicios Y Facilitation Logistica Integral Sa (Easyfly Sa) and Another: ChD 14 Jan 2020

Applications together which concern the jurisdiction of the English court to hear claims of trade mark infringement, passing off and conspiracy against a Colombian domestic airline and a French aircraft manufacturer.

Judges:

Mr Justice Nugee

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 40 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.646131

Zoo Sport v OHIM: ECJ 15 Jul 2014

ECJ (Order Of The Court) Appeals – Community trade mark – Figurative mark in black and white ‘zoo sport’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘ZOOT’ and ‘SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS’ – Partial refusal of registration

Citations:

C-675/13, [2014] EUECJ C-675/13 – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.535377

Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc: CA 18 Oct 2012

In a registered design claim, the line drawings included one or two small features (an opening catch and a rim around the edge), and the natural implication was that no other ornamentation was intended, a view supported by the fact that the plainness and transparency of the surface was subtly indicated by a few pairs of short lines suggesting the incidence of light on that surface.
Held: Jacob LJ said: ‘If an important feature of a design is no ornamentation, as Apple contended and was undisputed, the judge was right to say that a departure from no ornamentation would be taken into account by the informed user’.

Judges:

Longmore, Kitchin LJJ, Sir Robin Jacob

Citations:

[2012] EWCA Civ 1339, [2013] EMLR 10, [2013] ECDR 2, [2013} FSR 9

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At PatC – Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd v Apple Inc PatC 9-Jul-2012
The court found that Samsung had not, in its tablet computers, infringed the registered design belonging to Apple, and granted a declaration accordingly. . .

Cited by:

Cited – PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Ltd SC 9-Mar-2016
Overall Impression of Design is a Judgment
The respondent had alleged infringement of its registered design in the ‘Trunki’, a ride-on children’s suitcase. At first instance, the judge had held that the surface decorations were to be ignored. On appeal it had been held that the judge had . .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 22-Mar-2021
The defendant had been found to be in breach of copyright, and of misuse of private information. The court now considered the form of orders required to complete the judgment.
Held: The statement to be published by the defendant was not to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.464957