Any injunction to restrain passing off will need to be carefully drafted so not to give relief beyond that justified by the findings.
Citations:
[2001] RPC 182, [2000] EWCA Civ 242, [2000] IP and T 1332, [2000] IPandT 1332
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited, Coflexip S A v Stolt Comex Seaway Ms Limited, Stolt Comex Seaway Limited, Stolt Comex Seaway A/S PatC 29-Jan-1999
The past normal practice, after a finding of patent infringement, to grant a wide ranging injunction, needs to be reconsidered, and the Court of Appeal should be asked for guidance. The present practice was capable of producing unfairness. . .
Cited – Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd (No 2) ChD 1996
B alleged infringement by M of its patented nebulizer. M replied saying that the claims failed for obviousness. Features of the nebulizer were admittedly old and well known, but the claimant asserted a new mechanism which reduced the size of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Associated Newspapers Limited, Daily Mail and General Trust Plc v Express Newspapers (an Unlimited Company, Incorrectly Sued As Express Newspapers Limited) ChD 11-Jun-2003
The claimants sought to prevent the respondents from starting an evening newspaper entitled ‘THE MAIL’ as an infringement of their registered mark, and as passing off. In turn the defendant challenged the validity of the mark.
Held: The word . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147275
