Category: Intellectual Property

Football League Limited v Littlewoods Pools: ChD 1959

The plaintiff alleged copyright infringement by the defendant in the reproduction of its football fixture lists. The defendant argued that the work which went into deciding when and where the fixtures were to take place was not relevant: the only relevant skill and labour being that involved in reducing that information to material form.
Held: To assess the extent of skill labour and judgment going into a compilation for the 1956 Act, the court must allow for the whole history, including any work done to bring the data into existence in the first place. Copyright therefore subsisted in football fixture lists as a literary work and compilation. Importance was attached to the reproduction of not only the information, but also its arrangement, and to the fact that essentially the whole of the work in suit had been reproduced.
Upjohn J said: ‘Copyright for such a compilation can be claimed successfully if it be shown that some labour, skill, judgement or ingenuity has been brought to bear upon the compilation. The amount of labour, skill, judgement or ingenuity required to support successfully a claim for copyright is a question of fact and degree in every case.’ and ‘Mr Shelley . . submits, and I agree with him, that it is clearly settled law that there can be no copyright in information or in an opinion per se. Copyright can only be claimed in the composition or language which is chosen to express the information or the opinion.’ He rejected the argument that the skill and labour expended was directed to the creation of the programme, and not its recording in permanent form, saying: ‘In my judgement, on the facts of this case, it is not open to the defendants to try and dissect and break down the efforts of Sutcliffe in the way suggested. Accordingly in my judgment the plaintiffs are entitled to copyright in the chronological list.’

Judges:

Upjohn J

Citations:

[1959] 1 Ch 637, [1959] 2 All ER 546

Statutes:

Copyright Act 1956

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Brittens Pools Ltd (In Action 3222) and Others ChD 23-Apr-2010
The court considered what rights existed in the annual football fixture lists created by the claimants. The claimants said that the list was created only with a considerable effort applying certain rules. The defendants denied that any copyright . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.408855

Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 29 Apr 2010

Response to request for clarification of reference to the ECJ.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 925 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Interflora, Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 22-May-2009
Each of the parties provided a service delivering flowers. The claimant had a trade mark, and the defendants each purchased the use of that trade mark and variations of it with a search engine (Google) so that a search under the trade mark produced . .

Cited by:

See Also – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 24-Mar-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Trade marks – Keyword advertising corresponding to the trade mark of a competitor of the advertiser – Trade marks with a reputation – Blurring – Tarnishment – Free-riding – Directive 89/104 – . .
See Also – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 22-Sep-2011
ECJ Trade marks – Keyword advertising on the internet – Selection by the advertiser of a keyword corresponding to a competitor’s trade mark with a reputation – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 5(1)(a) and (2) – . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 20-Jun-2012
Application for permission to to adduce witness evidence at trial from witnesses gathered from two pilot surveys. . .
See Also – Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc and Another CA 20-Nov-2012
The court gave guidance on the use of surveys in trials for passing off and trade mark infringement.
Lewison LJ reviewed the practice of conducting interviews and surveys in passing off cases: ‘The upshot of this review is that courts have . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 21-Feb-2013
‘The Claimants (‘Interflora’) seek the permission of the Court to adduce in evidence the witness statements of 13 witnesses at the trial of this action scheduled for mid April 2013. Interflora do not accept that they need the Court’s permission, but . .
See also – Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 22-Mar-2013
Interflora had been refused permision to adduce survey evidence, but now appealed against refusal of permission to adduce evidence of confusion by witness statements.
Held: Appeal allowed. Reasons to follow. . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 5-Apr-2013
The court gave its reasons for allowing the claimant to bring additional witness evidence as to confusion as opposed to survey evidence. . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 15-Apr-2013
The defendant objected to the introduction of certain evidence by the claimant under a Civil Evidence Act notice. Claimants seeking to adduce academic journals as expert evidence . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 21-May-2013
Mark use in search engine was infringing use
The claimant mark owner alleged that the defendant, in paying a search engine to use the claimants mark as a search keyword was infringing its rights. The defendant argued that the use of the same sign in different contexts could amount to a . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 12-Jun-2013
The court considered the form of the injunction requested to give effect to the earlier full judgment in the case brought, requiring the defendant to discontinue any use of the terms complained of as infringing the claimant’s registered marks as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.408848

Maxim’s Ltd v Dye: ChD 1977

The Parisian restaurant had an extensive fame and goodwill, was extensively patronised by persons resident in England and had received direct bookings from England to reserve a table there. It sought to stop a restaurant in Norwich from trading as Maxims.
Held: The injunction was granted. The existence and extent of the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill in every case is a question of fact, however it may be proved and whatever it is based on.

Judges:

Graham J

Citations:

[1977] FSR 364

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not Followed – Alain Bernardin and Cie v Pavilion Properties Ltd ChD 1967
The owner of the Crazy Horse Saloon in Paris tried to stop a business in London under the same name. The plaintiff advertised in the UK but carried on no other activities here.
Held: An injunction was refused. The plaintiff had reputation but . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hotel Cipriani Srl and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others CA 24-Feb-2010
The claimants owned Community and UK trade marks in the name ‘Cipriani’. The defendants operated a restaurant in London using, under the licence of another defendant, the same name. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent further use of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.401815

Diageo North America, Inc and Another v Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd and Others: ChD 19 Jan 2010

The parties disputed the right to use various terms to describe and sell their alcoholic drinks, arguing for passing off. Diageo sought an unqualified injunction restraining ICB from advertising, offering for sale or selling or supplying any alcoholic beverage under the name VODKAT unless (1) the beverage in question was vodka with a minimum ABV of 37.5% or (2) in the case where the beverage was to be a combination of an alcoholic component diluted with a non-alcoholic component (other than water) which together formed a product having an ABV of less than 37.5%, the sole alcoholic component was vodka. Their contention before the judge was that the use of the name VODKAT either alone or in conjunction with a get-up reminiscent of vodka amounted to a misrepresentation that it was vodka or, at the very least, would do so absent a clear product description.
Held: Arnold J assessed the claim by reference to the so-called classical trinity of reputation, misrepresentation and damage which it is common ground have to be established in every case of passing-off. He found that vodka denoted a clearly defined class of goods in accordance with the 2008 Regulation.
Arnold J said: ‘It is also true that various products have been sold which contain, and are stated to contain, vodka, but which are not themselves vodka. The two principal categories of such products are vodka-containing RTDs and vodka-based liqueurs. RTDs form a well-established category of product, which is well understood by the public. On the whole, vodka-containing RTDs are marketed in a manner which clearly informs the consumer that they contain vodka rather than being vodka. In my view, the only possible exception to this in evidence is SMIRNOFF BLACK ICE in a 70cl bottle, which post-dates 2005. Even in that case, confusion is unlikely since SMIRNOFF ICE and SMIRNOFF BLACK ICE are well known to be RTDs. Vodka-based liqueurs are a very minor category. Again, they are marketed in a manner which informs the consumer that they contain, or are made from, vodka rather than being vodka. In my judgment neither of these categories detract from the existence, or definiteness, of the class of products denoted by the term ‘vodka’.’

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 17 (Ch), [2010] RPC 12, [2010] ETMR 17, [2010] 3 All ER 147, (2010) 33(3) IPD 33015

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation 110/2008/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Diageo North America Inc and Another v Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd and Others CA 30-Jul-2010
The claimant sought to prevent the respondent from marketing its VODKAT drinks range under that name unless it contained minimum levels of vodka. It said that the name was misleading: ‘This was . . a case of . . extended passing-off where protection . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.392991

Pytram v Models (Leicester) Ltd: ChD 1930

A model of a wolf-cub’s head was produced from a papier-mache mould in order to be used as a totem by the Boy Scouts Association. They had failed to register it as a design under the 1907 Act and sued for infringement of their copyright under the 1911 Act.
Held: The item was not protected by copyright, but was an artistic work under the 1911 Act and also fell within the definition of a ‘design’ under the 1907 Act as amended by the 1919 Act, since it was intended to be reproduced more than fifty times: ‘The whole point in the preparation of this model was to enable the plaintiffs to supply totem poles in large quantities.’ As a consequence of the amended definition of ‘design’, it was excluded from protection under the 1911 Act and no protection existed for it under the 1907 Act without registration.

Judges:

Clauson J

Citations:

[1930] 1 Ch 639

Statutes:

Patents and Designs Act 1907, Patents and Designs Act 1919, Copyright Act 1911

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another CA 16-Dec-2009
The claimants had made several Star Wars films for which the defendants had designed various props items. The parties disputed ownership of the rights in the designs, and in articular of a stormtrooper helmet. The issues came down to whether the . .
Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.384432

Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another: ChD 15 Jul 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1553 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
See Also – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another CA 2-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed a finding that it had abused its dominant market position in refusing to supply to the claimant a copyright licence for its information on horse racing at a proper or acceptable price. The defendant was said to have a monopoly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.228592

L Woolley Jewellers Ltd v A and A Jewellery Ltd and Another: CA 31 Jul 2002

The defendants appealed against a decision that they had infringed the design right of the claimant’s in jewelry.
Held: When looking at an infringement of a design, regard had to be had to the design as a whole. Questions in copyright law about the substantiality of what was copied were not to be applied in this different context of design right infringement. Such difficulties had no part in design right claims.

Judges:

Lady Justice Arden

Citations:

Times 04-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1119

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.177312

Abbott Laboratories v OHIM (Restore): ECFI 15 Nov 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark RESTORE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7, paragraph 1, sub c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 , b) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Violation of the right to be heard – Obligation to state reasons – Article 75, first and second sentences of Regulation No 207/2009

Judges:

Moavero Milanesi R

Citations:

T-363/10, [2011] EUECJ T-363/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.448689

Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and Another: CA 22 Nov 2011

Judges:

Ward, Patten LJJ, Sir Robin Jacob

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1337

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK PatC 23-Jan-2009
Shutz sued Werit for patent infringement, Delta for patent infringement, trade mark infringement and passing off. Both actions concerned the same subject matter, namely intermediate bulk containers, otherwise known as IBCs, and the same patents. . .
At CA (1) – Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd CA 29-Mar-2011
. .
Cited – United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd HL 21-Jul-2000
The patentees had two patents relating to parts of oil rigs, coming into play to clean drill bits of cuttings on retraction. The defendants sold re-conditioned frames for this process.
Held: Where the apparent exercise of a right of repair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448490

Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303 Inc: CA 8 Nov 2011

The parties had litigated the validity of a patent.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger MR, Aikens, Lewison LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1288

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Baird v Moule’s Patent Earth Closet Co Ltd CA 3-Feb-1876
Where a patentee sues for infringement and then discontinues his claim against the alleged infringer and consents to the revocation of his patent, he may yet require the alleged infringer to pay a substantial proportion of his costs if he can show . .
Cited – Ungar v Sugg 1892
Lord Esher MR discussed the costs of patent infringement litigation: ‘Well, then, the moment there is a patent case one can see it before the case is opened, or called in the list. How can we see it? We can see it by a pile of books as high as this . .
Cited – See v Scott-Paine 1933
The court granted an order allowing amendments applied for, but then to give the applicant a period of time in which to consider, in light of the amendments, whether it wished to maintain that the patent or design in suit was valid and continue with . .
Appeal From – Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303, Inc ChD 12-Oct-2011
The claimant sought an order debarring the defendant from relying on any evidence to support their case at the forthcoming trial for the revocation of a patent. . .
Cited – Williamson v Moldline Limited and Others 1986
The purpose of a Scott-Paine order is to impose on a party attacking the validity of a patent the obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that the full attack is put before the patentee at the earliest time. The imposition of that obligation . .
Cited – In re GEC Alsthom Limited’s Patent ChD 1996
Laddie J pointed out a number of injustices that could be produced by the making of an Earth Closet order, including: ‘i) Such an order was a disincentive to a defendant to plead his best case, particularly since prior art from all over the world . .
Cited – CIL International Ltd v Vitrashop Ltd ChD 2002
Pumfrey J held that an Earth Closet order was not incompatible with the CPR. His reason was that such an order was not incompatible with the overriding objective: ‘That being the existing state of the law prior to the Civil Procedure Rules it may be . .
Cited – In re GEC Alsthom Limited’s Patent ChD 1996
Laddie J pointed out a number of injustices that could be produced by the making of an Earth Closet order, including: ‘i) Such an order was a disincentive to a defendant to plead his best case, particularly since prior art from all over the world . .
Cited – Carey v HSBC Bank plc, Yunis v Barclays Bank plc and similar QBD 23-Dec-2009
(Manchester Mercantile Court) The court considered the effects in detail where a bank was unable to comply with a request under section 78 of the 1974 Act to provide a copy of the agreement signed by the client.
Held: The court set out to give . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448137

Vigneux and Others v Canadian Performing Right Society Limited: PC 18 Jan 1945

(Supreme Court of Canada) The Vigneux brothers supplied coin-operated juke boxes with records to restaurants, cafes and other places attended by the public. The proceeds were divided between the Vigneux brothers and the owner of the establishment. In some instances the Vigneux brothers received a pre-determined share; in others a fixed amount irrespective of the number of plays. The latter was the arrangement in place in the case at bar. Theye were accused of copyright infringement.
Held: Lord Russell said: ‘In regard to Vigneux, no doubt in law they are the owners of the gramophone. As such they might, if necessary, claim to be protected by the subsection, but in their case no such claim is necessary, because, as their Lordships think, they neither gave the public performance of ‘Stardust’, nor did they authorize it. They had no control over the use of the machine; they had no voice as to whether at any particular time it was to be available to the restaurant customers or not. The only part which they played in the matter was in the ordinary course of their business, to hire out to Raes one of their machines and supply it with records, at a weekly rental of ten dollars.’

Judges:

Lord Russell

Citations:

[1945] UKPC 1, [1945] AC 108

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.447987

Attheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another: ChD 21 Dec 2005

The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB controlled the market, and by threatening to terminate the licence of the claimant had abused that dominant position. The prices demanded by the defendant were excessive and unfair, being greater than to broadcasters. Plans to use money from the commercial exploitation of the data to improve British Racing could not justify such abuse.

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3015 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 18

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another ChD 15-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd ECJ 9-Nov-2004
bhb_whECJ2004
The claimant sought to prevent re-use by the defendant of information from its horse racing subscription service. They claimed that they had a database right in the information. It cost andpound;4m per year to assemble.
Held: The expression . .
Cited – British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another v William Hill Organization Ltd CA 13-Jul-2005
The Court allowed William Hill’s appeal, holding that BHB had not established that the ECJ had given its earlier ruling on the basis of an erroneous assumption of fact and that the result of applying the ruling was that BHB’s Database did not fall . .
Cited – Racing UK Ltd v Doncaster Racecourse Ltd and Another CA 20-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – Racecourse Association and others v Office of Fair Trading CAT 2-Aug-2005
. .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Aberdeen Journals Limited v Office of Fair Trading (No 2) CAT 2002
Sir Christopher Bellamy said: ‘. . the question whether a certain pricing practice by a dominant undertaking is to be regarded as abusive for the purposes of Chapter II is a matter to be looked at in the round, taking particularly into account (i) . .
Cited – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 16-Jan-2002
. .
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 – United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 14-Feb-1978
Europa The opportunities for competition under article 86 of the treaty must be considered having regard to the particular features of the product in question and with reference to a clearly defined geographic . .
Cited – Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission ECJ 13-Feb-1979
ECJ Observance of the right to be heard is required in all proceedings in which sanctions, in particular fines or penalty payments, may be imposed as a fundamental principle of community law. It must be respected . .
Cited – Irish Sugar v Commission T-228/97 ECFI 7-Oct-1999
Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) – Dominant position and joint dominant position – Abuse – Fine. . .
Cited – General Motors NV v Commission ECJ 13-Nov-1975
Europa When combined with the freedom of the manufacturer or its authorized agent appointed by the public authority to fix the price for its service, the delegation by a member state to such person in the form of . .
Cited – Portugal v Commission (Judgment) ECJ 29-Mar-2001
. .
Cited – Scandlines Svergie AB v Port of Helsingborg Case 2000
(Year?) The Commission dismissed a complaint by a ferry company of excessive and discriminatory port charges by the port operator. The Commission said that, in calculating the production costs, it was necessary to take account not only of the costs . .
Cited – The Football Association Premier League Limited, The Football Association Limited, The Football League Limited (And Their Respective Member Clubs) v British Sky Broadcasting Limited, British Broadcasting Limited RPC 28-Jul-1999
Agreements had been made controlling the broadcasting of football matches. The director general sought to challenge them as restrictive practices, since the individual clubs had signed away their right themselves to arrange for the broadcasting of . .
Cited – Tierce Ladbroke SA v Commission ECFI 1997
‘According to settled case-law, for the purposes of applying Article [82] of the Treaty, the relevant product or service market includes products or services which are substitutable or sufficiently interchangeable with the product or service in . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another CA 2-Feb-2007
The defendant appealed a finding that it had abused its dominant market position in refusing to supply to the claimant a copyright licence for its information on horse racing at a proper or acceptable price. The defendant was said to have a monopoly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.236616

Forticrete Ltd v Lafarge Roofing Ltd: ChD 25 Nov 2005

Patent infringement action.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Kitchin

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 3024 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 64

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich CA 9-Aug-1999
The tenant had sought an order against the council landlord for failure to repair her dwelling. The defendant appealed refusal of leave to amend the pleadings in anticipation of the trial, now due to start on the following day.
Held: Leave was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.237803

GMG Radio Holdings Ltd and others v Tokyo Project Ltd and Another: ChD 14 Oct 2005

Interim application to restrain the defendants from using certain artwork in relation to compact discs or for the purpose of promoting certain musical events. Claim in trade marks.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2188 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.231272

Dyson Limited v The Registrar of Trade Marks: ChD 15 May 2003

Applications for trade marks on behalf of the claimant had been rejected. Acquired distinctiveness was a significant issue, and the question of whether the appeal was a review or a rehearing was significant. In this appeal, the parties had given oral evidence, and the Registrar contended that any further appeal to the High court should be by way of review only. The CPR were not excluded, but would provide for a review only.
Held: It was insufficient to characterise the decision as administartive. The appointed officer was accepted not to be an independent tribunal. The decision to be made would involve private rights and the right to a fair trial was engaged. The question was whether the court was obliged to order a rehearing rather than a review whenever an ex parte hearing had taken place. It was for the court to decide whether a rehearing was appropriate. The need to comply with Art 6.1 meant that a rehearing had to be available if needed. In this case a review was adequate. The mark sought had to be used, up to the relevant date, as a trade mark. It is otherwise difficult to see how the feature (a clear bin) could come to be regarded in the minds of the public as a guarantee of origin. On that basis the court would have dismissed the appeal on acquired distinctiveness.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Patten

Citations:

Times 23-May-2003, [2003] EWHC 1062 (Ch), Gazette 17-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2406

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994 76, Trade Mark Rules 2000 (S.I. 2000 No. 136) 54(1), Civil Procedure Rules 52.11(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6.1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – De Cubber v Belgium ECHR 26-Oct-1984
The applicant a Belgian, had been convicted of forgery. He said that the court had not been an impartial tribunal because one of the judges had also acted as an investigating judge in his case. Amongst the grounds on which it was contended that . .
Cited – South Cone Incorporated v Bessant, Greensmith, House and Stringer (a Partnership) trading as ‘Reef’; REEF Trade Mark ChD 24-Jul-2001
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd ECJ 18-Jun-2002
The claimant developed a three headed rotary razor for men. They obtained registration of the arrangement as a trade mark. They sued the defendant for infringement, and the defendant countered challenging the validity of the registration, saying the . .
Cited – Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions and Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber and another ECJ 4-May-1999
Registration is to be refused in respect of descriptive marks, ie marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of the categories of goods or services in respect of which registration is applied . .
Cited – Procter and Gamble Co v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (‘Baby-Dry’) ECJ 20-Sep-2001
ECJ Appeal – Admissibility – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Absolute ground for refusal to register – Distinctive character – Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications – . .
Cited – David West Trading As Eastenders v Fuller Smith and Turner Plc CA 31-Jan-2003
The appellant sought a declaration of invalidity as regards the defendant’s registered mark ‘ESB’. It was claimed to have come to be used as a general designation of certain kinds of beer.
Held: The Philips decision appeared to supercede the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Civil Procedure Rules, Human Rights

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.182220

Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd: CA 27 Oct 2011

Appeal against rejection of claim of infringement of registered design.

Judges:

Jackson, Black LJJ, Sir Robin Jacob

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 1206, [2012] FSR 4

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd and Another v Apple Inc ChD 4-Apr-2012
The parties were engaged in worldwide litigation disputing an alleged infringement of Apple’s registered design by Samsung’s Galaxy tablet computer. In this case, Samsung sought a declaration of non-infringement. Apple counterclaimed, alleging . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447611

Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke v OHMI – Koninklijke Bam Groep (Bam): ECFI 26 Oct 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark BAM – Earlier national figurative mark BAM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – No similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-426/09, [2011] EUECJ T-426/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447599

Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another: QBD 24 Oct 2011

The claimant accused the defendant newspaper and journalist of breach of confidence, conversion and Data Protection breach. They said that he had received and published extracts from a confidential internal document leaked to him.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2705 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Another v Times Newspapers Ltd and Another QBD 18-Apr-2011
The defendant had been sued in defamation, and now sought release of police records as to the claimant. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions SC 22-Jul-2015
Questions on Entry must be answered
B was questioned at an airport under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, and required to answer questions asked by appropriate officers for the purpose set out. She refused to answer and was convicted of that refusal , contrary to paragraph 18 of that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Information, Torts – Other

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447532

Re Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Ltd: PatC 26 Oct 2011

Judges:

Floyd J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2720 (Pat), [2012] RPC 13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977

Citing:

Appeal from – Protecting Kids The World Over (PKTWO) Limited (Patent) IPO 23-Dec-2010
IPO The invention concerned a system for monitoring an electronic communication on the internet such as a chat room, e.g. being used by a child. Words and phrases in the electronic communication were matched with . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks CA 13-Nov-2014
The inventor company appealed against rejection of its application for a patent for a computer program.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, the invention is no more than the computerisation of a process which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 September 2022; Ref: scu.447528

Poloplast v OHMI – Polypipe (P): ECFI 20 Oct 2011

ECJ French Text – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark P – Earlier Community figurative marks P and P Polypipe – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009]

Judges:

MM S Papasavvas, President, V. Vadapalas (Rapporteur) and K O’Higgins J

Citations:

T-189/09, [2011] EUECJ T-189/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445998

Freixenet v OHIM: ECJ 20 Oct 2011

ECJ Appeal – Applications for registration of Community trade marks representing a frosted white bottle and a frosted black matt bottle – Refusal to register – Lack of distinctive character

Judges:

K Lenaerts, President of the Chamber

Citations:

C-345/10, [2011] EUECJ C-345/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445995

Associated Broadcasting Company Limited and Others v Composers, Authors and Publishers Association of Canada Limited: PC 1 Dec 1954

(Ontario) The plaintiff copyright holder complained of the infringement of their copyrights in recordings by the broadcasting of the same by the defendant’s members.

Citations:

[1954] UKPC 41, [1954] 3 All ER 708, [1954] 1 WLR 1484

Links:

Bailii

Commonwealth, Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.445904

Galileo International Technology v OHMI – Galileo Sistemas Y Servicios (Gss Galileo Sistemas Y Servicios): ECFI 6 Oct 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark ‘GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’ – Earlier Community word marks ‘GALILEO’ – Earlier Community figurative mark ‘powered by Galileo’ – Earlier Community figurative marks ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Judges:

L. Truchot, P

Citations:

T-488/08, [2011] EUECJ T-488/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 40/94, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445425

Honda Motor v OHMI- Blok (Blast): ECFI 6 Oct 2011

ECJ (Intellectual Property) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark BLAST – Earlier Community and Benelux word marks BLAST – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Weak distinctive character of the earlier marks)

Citations:

T-425/09, [2011] EUECJ T-425/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445428

Medi v OHMI- Deutsche Medien Center (Deutschemedi.De): ECFI 6 Oct 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark deutschemedi.de – Earlier Community word mark World of medi, national brands medi.eu figurative and word marks, welt medi, medi-Verband, media and business name and company name previous medi – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-247/10, [2011] EUECJ T-247/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8.1

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445430

Seven v OHMI- Seven For All Mankind (Seven For All Mankind): ECFI 6 Oct 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND – Earlier Community and international figurative marks containing the word element ‘seven’ – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-176/10, [2011] EUECJ T-176/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445431

Bang and Olufsen v OHIM (Representation D’Un Haut-Parleur): ECFI 6 Oct 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark – Representation of a loudspeaker – Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal – Article 63(6) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Absolute ground for refusal – Sign which consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods – Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Citations:

T-508/08, [2011] EUECJ T-508/08

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.445419

La Sonrisa De Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHMI- Heldmann (Bloomclothes): ECFI 5 Oct 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark BLOOMCLOTHES – Earlier national word mark BLOOM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 40 / 94 [now Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009]

Citations:

T-118/09, [2011] EUECJ T-118/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444955

Paki Logistics v OHIM (Paki): ECFI 5 Oct 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark PAKI – Absolute ground for refusal – Mark contrary to public order or morality – Article 7, paragraph 1 f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-526/09, [2011] EUECJ T-526/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444957

New Yorker Shk Jeans v OHMI – Vallis K – Vallis A (Fishbone): ECFI 29 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE – Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR – Relative ground for refusal – Partial refusal of registration – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Consideration of additional evidence – Statement of reasons – Proof of genuine use – Likelihood of confusion – Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 – First subparagraph and second subparagraph, heading (a), of Article 15(1) and Article 42(2), (3) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

T-415/09, [2011] EUECJ T-415/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444930

Telefonica O2 Germany v OHMI – Loopia (Loopia): ECFI 29 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark LOOPIA – Earlier Community word marks LOOP and LOOPY – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-150/10, [2011] EUECJ T-150/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444937

Cooperativa Vitivinicola Arousana v OHMI- Sotelo Ares (Rosalia De Castro): ECFI 5 Oct 2011

ECFI French Text – Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ROSALIA DE CASTRO – Earlier national word mark ROSALIA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of goods – Findings of the similarity of the signs at the conceptual level – Article 8 , paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-421/10, [2011] EUECJ T-421/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444954

Adidas v OHMI – Patrick Holding (Representation D’Une Chaussure Avec Deux Bandes): ECFI 29 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a shoe with two stripes on the side – Earlier national trade mark representing a shoe with three stripes on the side – Relative ground for refusal – Failure to substantiate the earlier right – Failure to translate elements essential to substantiating the registration of the earlier trade mark – Rule 16(3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Citations:

T-479/08, [2011] EUECJ T-479/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 16(3) 17(2) 20(2)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444915

Brighton Collectibles v OHMI – Felmar (Brighton): ECFI 27 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark BRIGHTON – Earlier national word and figurative or other signs of previous BRIGHTON BRIGHTON – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) and paragraph 2 c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8, paragraph 4 of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

T-403/10, [2011] EUECJ T-403/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444724

Nike International v OHMI- Deichmann (Victory Red): ECFI 28 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community word mark VICTORY RED – Earlier international and national word marks Victory – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-356/10, [2011] EUECJ T-356/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444779

Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional v OHMI – Proton Motor Fuel Cell (Pm Proton Motor): ECFI 27 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community figurative mark PM PROTON MOTOR – Earlier national, Benelux and Community word and figurative marks PROTON – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Lack of similarity between the goods and services – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Citations:

T-581/08, [2011] EUECJ T-581/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444727

El Jirari Bouzekri v OHMI – Nike International (Nc Nickol): ECFI 27 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark NC NICKOL – Earlier Community figurative mark NIKE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the signs – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94

Citations:

T-207/09, [2011] EUECJ T-207/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation No 40/94 8(5)

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444725

Vion v OHIM (Passion For Better Food): ECFI 23 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark PASSION FOR BETTER FOOD – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 7, paragraph a, b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009]

Citations:

T-251/08, [2011] EUECJ T-251/08

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444672

Ara Ag v OHMI – Allrounder (A Avec Deux Motifs Triangulaires): ECFI 22 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Community – A figurative mark with two triangular patterns – A national word mark – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-174/10, [2011] EUECJ T-174/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444661

Cesea Group v OHMI – Mangini and C Srl (Mangiami): ECFI 22 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark Mangiami – Earlier international word mark MANGINI – Admissibility of new evidence – Article 76, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 207/200

Citations:

T-250/09, [2011] EUECJ T-250/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/200 2

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444662

Nike International v OHIM (Dynamic Support): ECFI 21 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC SUPPORT – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-512/10, [2011] EUECJ T-512/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7(1)(c)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444622

Rugen Fisch v OHMI – Schwaaner Fischwaren (Scomber Mix): ECFI 21 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark Scomber MIX – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) and c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 7 paragraph 1 b) and c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009]

Citations:

T-201/09, [2011] EUECJ T-201/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.444628

Re Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92: PatC 31 Jul 2008

Appeal from rejection of an application for a supplementary protection certificate in relation to a European Patent on the basis that the product the subject of the application was not ‘protected’ by the Patent within the meaning of the Article 3(a) of the Regulation.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1902 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EEC) No.1768/92

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 September 2022; Ref: scu.271308

DSM SFG Group Holdings Ltd and Others v Kelly: CA 19 Dec 2019

The court considered the extent to which it is permissible for a litigant to rely on confidential information, obtained by covert recording of another’s premises, to support a legal claim before that litigant has established the right to use that information.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 2256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Evidence, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.645856

Nintendo Co. Ltd v PC Box Srl: ECJ 19 Sep 2013

ECJ Opinion – Copyright and related rights in the information society – Protection of technological measures designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by the rightholder – Video game consoles structured to prevent the use of games other than those authorised by the console manufacturer – Devices capable of circumventing such measures – Relevance of the intended use of the consoles – Relevance of the extent, nature and importance of different possible uses of the devices

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

C-355/12, [2013] EUECJ C-355/12, [2014] EUECJ C-355/12

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.515364

Cunningham Covers Limited v Airmat Safety Products Limited (Patent): IPO 30 Sep 2004

IPO The patent related to safety apparatus for use in building construction, inflatable to cushion a falling worker, comprising a plurality of chambers (which could be a series of individual bags) ‘coupled together by valves controllable to interconnect the chambers such that the bag means can be adjusted to a desired plan shape’. C sought a declaration in respect of a product in which inflatable bags were connected in series by pipes between openings in the chambers to build up a desired plan shape, with openings not in use being disconnected and sealed by bungs. C put in issue the validity of the patent, citing a patent specification PA1 for novelty and inventive step and a further specification PA2 in combination with PA1 to show lack of inventive step against a subsidiary claim. C also put in evidence in evidence a known swimming pool inflatable X but did not formally plead it for validity, apparently relying on it to show that it was using a known type of interconnection.
The attack on validity failed: the hearing officer (i) distinguished PA1 as relating to an air-tight bouncing structure rather than a cushion, (ii) did not accept that it would be an obvious modification, (iii) did not accept that PA1 and PA2 could be combined to show obviousness, and (iv) doubted the relevance of X in the absence of further argument. Having regard to the types of valve exemplified in the patent, the hearing officer construed the patent as including C’s interconnection, and declined to grant a declaration. Referring to apparent hints in C’s case that the patent was preventing the public from using something already available to it, the hearing officer noted the absence of any alternative pleading to that effect in the event of an adverse finding on infringement and did not consider the point any further.

Judges:

Mr R Kennell

Citations:

[2004] UKIntelP o30204

Links:

PO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.456072

Ancon Limited v Szewczyk (Patent): IPO 30 Sep 2004

IPO Ancon Limited initiated a reference under section 37 claiming entitlement in the patent in suit by virtue of section 39 on the grounds that the invention involved was made by Mr Szewczyk in the normal course of his duties while employed by them. Inventorship was not in issue. The Hearing Officer found on the facts that Ancon had made out their case on the balance of probabilities, and ordered that ownership of the patent should be transferred to them. Costs were awarded in Ancons favour.

Judges:

Mr S Dennehey

Citations:

[2004] UKIntelP o30104

Links:

PO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.456067

Centrotherm Clean Solutions v OHMI – Centrotherm Systemtechnik (Centrotherm): ECFI 15 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Community word mark CENTROTHERM – Genuine use of the mark – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-427/09, [2011] EUECJ T-427/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 51(1)(a)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444372

Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHMI – Centrotherm Clean Solutions (Centrotherm): ECFI 15 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Community word mark CENTROTHERM – Genuine use of the mark – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion – Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Admissibility of new evidence – Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 – Plea of illegality – Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Citations:

T-434/09, [2011] EUECJ T-434/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444373

Ruiz De La Prada De Sentmenat v OHMI – Quant Cosmetics Japan (Agatha Ruiz De La Prada): ECFI 13 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA – Earlier national and Community figurative marks representing a flower in black and white – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009]

Citations:

T-523/08, [2011] EUECJ T-523/08

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444133

Omnicare v OHMI – Astellas Pharma (Omnicare Clinical Research): ECFI 9 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark OMNICARE CLINICAL RESEARCH – Earlier national figurative mark OMNICARE – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the services – Genuine use of the earlier mark

Citations:

T-289/09, [2011] EUECJ T-289/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444130

Ruiz De La Prada De Sentmenat v OHMI – Quant (Agatha Ruiz De La Prada): ECFI 13 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA – earlier Community figurative mark representing a flower in black and white – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC ) No 40/94 [now Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009]

Citations:

T-522/08, [2011] EUECJ T-522/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444132

MIP Metro v OHMI – Metronia (Metronia): ECFI 8 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark METRONIA – Earlier national figurative mark METRO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-525/09, [2011] EUECJ T-525/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444118

Meredith v OHIM (Better Homes And Gardens): ECFI 7 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS – Absolute ground for refusal – Partial refusal by the examiner to register the mark – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-524/09, [2011] EUECJ T-524/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444117

Dm-Drogerie Markt v OHMI – Distribuciones Mylar (DM): ECFI 9 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark dm – Earlier national figurative mark dm – Administrative procedure – Decisions of the Opposition Divisions – Revocation – Correction of clerical errors – Legally non-existent measure – Admissibility of appeals before the Board of Appeal – Time-limit for filing an appeal – Legitimate expectations – Articles 59, 60a, 63 and 77a of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 60, 62, 65 and 80 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Rule 53 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

Citations:

T-36/09, [2011] EUECJ T-36/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, Regulation (EC) No 40/94, Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444098

Kwang Yang Motor v OHMI – Honda Giken Kogyo (Moteur A Combustion Interne) (Intellectual Property): ECFI 9 Sep 2011

ECFI Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing an internal combustion engine – Earlier national design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – Visible features of a component part of a complex product – No different overall impression – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – Articles 4, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002

Citations:

T-11/08, [2011] EUECJ T-11/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 4 6 25(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444113

Luksan v Van Der Let (Intellectual Property) French Text: ECJ 6 Sep 2011

ECJ Directive 93/83/EEC – Directive 2006/116/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC – Directive 2005/115/EC – Copyright of the principal director of a film – Allocation of exclusive exploitation rights to the producer Film – Conditions – Article 14bis of the Berne Convention – Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Equitable remuneration of the author – Article 5, paragraph 2 b) of Directive 2001/29/EC – Rights to pay for copies for private use – Fair compensation

Citations:

C-277/10, [2011] EUECJ C-277/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 93/83/EEC, Directive 2006/116/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2005/115/EC

Cited by:

See Also – Luksan v Van Der Let ECJ 9-Feb-2012
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Intellectual property – Copyright and related rights – Directives 93/83/EEC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC and 2006/116/EC – Sharing of the rights to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444116

BVR v OHMI – Austria Leasing (Austria Leasing Gesellschaft M.B.H. Mitglied Der Raiffeisen-Bankengruppe Osterreich): ECFI 9 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Leasing Gesellschaft mbH Austria Mitglied der Raiffeisen-Osterreich Bankengruppe – Earlier national figurative mark Raiffeisenbank – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation ( EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-197/10, [2011] EUECJ T-197/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444092

Deutsche Bahn v OHMI – DSB (IC4): ECFI 9 Sep 2011

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark IC4 – Earlier Community word mark ICE and earlier national figurative mark IC – Criteria for assessing likelihood of confusion – Relative grounds for refusal – Similarity of the services – Similarity of the signs – Distinctive character of the earlier mark – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-274/09, [2011] EUECJ T-274/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.444097

Temple Island Collection Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and Another: PCC 29 Jul 2011

Judges:

Birss QC HHJ

Citations:

[2011] EWPCC 21

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 1(1)(a)

Citing:

See Also – Temple Island Collection Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and Another PCC 22-Jun-2011
The court gave reasons for disallowing an application by the claimant to amend its particulars of claim. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and Another PCC 12-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted infringement of their copyright in a photograph. It showed the Houses of Parliament in black and white with a London bus in red. The original action had been settled and the proposed image withdrawn as a copy. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443771

Temple Island Collection Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and Another: PCC 22 Jun 2011

The court gave reasons for disallowing an application by the claimant to amend its particulars of claim.

Judges:

Birss QC HHJ

Citations:

[2011] EWPCC 19

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

See Also – Temple Island Collection Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and Another PCC 29-Jul-2011
. .
See Also – Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and Another PCC 12-Jan-2012
The claimant asserted infringement of their copyright in a photograph. It showed the Houses of Parliament in black and white with a London bus in red. The original action had been settled and the proposed image withdrawn as a copy. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.443769

EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd v UPC Communications Ireland Ltd: 10 Nov 2010

(High Court of Ireland) The court considered claims for copyright infringement in music distributed over the Internet.
Held: Charleton J described and assessed three different potential technical solutions.

Judges:

Charleton J

Citations:

[2010] IEHC 377

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442532