Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Intellectual Property - From: 1997 To: 1997

This page lists 68 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Baywatch Production Co. Inc. -v- Home Video Channel [1997] FSR 22
1997


Intellectual Property
Proof of an infringement under Section 10(3) does require proof that the use was such as was likely to cause confusion.
Trade Marks Act 1994 810(1)
1 Citers


 
Barnsley Brewery Co Ltd -v- RBNB [1997] FSR 462
1997
ChD
Robert Walker J
Intellectual Property, Limitation
Walker J noted that the traditional view of brewing (where source and quality of water was important), reflected the view of general beer drinkers who were conscious that beer from certain regions was particularly good, and said: "The traditional view is that the source and quality of water is important for brewing . . The traditional view may be of some importance here, as reflecting the view of the general public, including the generality of beer drinkers."
Goodwill can be acquired by "de facto assumption" or "adverse possession". The relevant time for determining whether there has been a passing off can be the date when the passing off was first threatened.
On an application for an interim injunction in such a case the court may allow for the strengths of the parties' respective cases.

 
Vodafone Group Plc -v- Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd [1997] FSR 34; [1997] EMLR 84
1997
ChD
Jacob J
Intellectual Property, Media, Defamation
The court examined the development of the law in relation to comparative advertising. Jacob J said: "Prior to the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994 comparative advertising using a registered trade mark of a competitor was, subject to minor exceptions involving the use of a company name, forbidden by section 4(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1938. But in an increasingly pro-competitive environment there was virtually a moratorium on enforcement of section 4(1) rights in a number of trades - for instance comparative advertising in the field of motor cars was very common for a number of years before the 1938 Act was repealed. The 1994 Act now positively permits fair competitive advertising by section 10(6). This provides:
"Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or a licensee.
But any such use otherwise than in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters shall be treated as infringing the registered trade mark if the use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark."
In this case it is common ground that there is no infringement unless the use of Vodaphone in the comparison falls within the qualification of section 10(6). This qualification was considered by Laddie J in Barclays Bank Plc v. Advanta [1996] RPC 307. He held that it is for the plaintiff to show that the use falls within the qualification and that the test of honesty is objective (ie. would a reasonable reader be likely to say, upon being given the full facts, that the advertisement is not honest?). Laddie J gave as an example the case where the advertisement is "significantly misleading". In trade marks, as [Counsel] rightly submitted, there is no "one meaning rule". If a comparison is significantly misleading on an objective basis to a substantial proportion of the reasonable audience, it is not an "honest practice" within the section."
"The meaning of the words concerned is the first matter to be considered, for their truth or falsity is to be tested against that meaning. The meaning is for the court to determine when a judge sits without a jury. Evidence of the meaning to others is inadmissible. The question: ‘is not one of construction in the legal sense. The ordinary man does not live in an ivory tower and he is not inhibited by the rules of construction. So he can and does read between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs . . What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge has generally been called the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. But that expression is rather misleading in that it conceals the fact that there are two elements in it. Sometimes it is not necessary to go beyond the words themselves, as where the plaintiff has been called a thief or a murderer. But more often the sting is not so much in the words themselves as in what the ordinary man will infer from them, and that is also regarded as part of their natural and ordinary meaning’, per Lord Reid in Lewis v The Daily Telegraph"
Jacob J discussed obiter the application of the 'one meaning rule' in malicious falsehood cases: "As a comparative stranger to this branch of the law I find the "one meaning rule" strange, particularly for malicious falsehood. Without authority, I should have thought it would be enough to satisfy the criterion of falsity for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant made a statement which was false to a substantial number of people. That, for instance, is the position in passing off (a tort also concerned with false representations): for that tort it is enough to show that the representation fools some of the people, even if not most of them.
The reason for the libel rule in part relates to the entitlement of jury trial for libel (as Diplock L.J. explained in Slim). Save in exceptional circumstances the right to jury trial remains for libel and slander (see section 69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981) but there is no such right in relation to malicious falsehood. So it by no means follows that that historical reason for the rule in libel should apply to malicious falsehood. Another reason for the rule relates to the function of a jury in awarding damages for defamation: unless one has settled on a particular meaning one cannot judge the extent of the defamation. But in malicious falsehood damages are rather different: they are essentially compensatory for pecuniary loss as for most other torts. So again it does not seem necessarily to follow that the libel rule should apply to the tort. However, as I say, the parties were agreed that I should proceed on the basis that I am a notional jury identifying the single meaning of the words complained of. That is what I will do, and, as will be seen, in this case the point is academic."
Jacob J looked at the question of meaning in marketing cases: "This is a case about advertising. The public are used to the ways of advertisers and expect a certain amount of hyperbole. In particular the public are used to advertisers claiming the good points of a product and ignoring others, . . and the public are reasonably used to comparisons— "knocking copy" as it is called in the advertising world. This is important in considering what the ordinary meaning may be. The test is whether a reasonable man would take the claim being made as one made seriously, the more precise the claim the more it is likely to be so taken— the more general or fuzzy the less so."
Trade Marks Act 1994 10(6) - Supreme Court Act 1981 69(1)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Direct Line Group Limited -v- Direct Line Estate Agency [1997] FSR 374
1997
ChD
Laddie J
Intellectual Property
The court granted an interlocutory injunction to the financial services group Direct Line against two individuals who had arranged the incorporation of a large number of companies under names comprising the names or trade marks of well-known enterprises, including three companies comprising the word "Direct Line". These facts were "only reasonably consistent with an intention on their part to hitch themselves to other companies reputations and make an elicit profit by doing so".
1 Citers


 
Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd -v- Ministry of Defence Northern Ireland Office [1997] RPC 693
1997
ChD
Jacobs J
Intellectual Property
Jacobs J said: "I do not think it is right to divide up the claim for an invention which consists of a combination of elements and then to seek to identify who contributed which element. I think the inquiry is more fundamental than that. One must seek to identify who in substance made the combination. Who was responsible for the inventive concept, namely the combination? That was solely Mr Z. It was his idea which turned a useless collection of elements into something which would work. The patent, as I have said already, is really about the joint. The remainder of the elements of the claim, although necessary, are peripheral."
To base a claim under section 7, it is not enough that someone contributed to the claims, because they may include non-patentable integers derived from prior art.
Patents Act 1977 7(3)
1 Citers


 
United Biscuits -v- Asda [1997] RPC 513
1997
ChD
Robert Walker J
Intellectual Property
Robert Walker J upheld a claim in passing off notwithstanding the existence of different branding. He said: "But it seems to me to be likely that [certain individuals acting for the defendants] were, under advice, seeking to make only such changes as were needed in order to avoid what they judged to be an unacceptable risk of being attacked for copying, while maintaining Puffin's position as an obvious competitor and parody, and (they hoped) a 'brand beater. I cannot escape the conclusion that, while aiming to avoid what the law would characterise as deception, [the defendant is] taking a conscious decision to live dangerously. That is not in my judgment something that the court is bound to disregard." The question of the similarity between the get up of two products should be judged, to a significant extent, as a matter of first impression.
1 Citers


 
Metix (UK) Ltd -v- G H Maughan (Plastics) Ltd [1997] FSR 718
1997
ChD
Laddie J
Intellectual Property
The plaintiff sought protect its products by claiming copyright protection in the moulds made for making industrial products (twin cartridges like a double-barrelled syringe, which held products prior to their being mixed) The plaintiff claimed that the moulds were works of sculpture. Held: The plaintiff's claim was not arguable. Laddie J based this on the function of the moulds: "The law has been bedevilled by attempts to widen out the field covered by the copyright acts. It is not possible to say with precision what is and what is not sculpture, but I think Mr Meade was close to the heart of the issue. He suggested that a sculpture is a three-dimensional work made by an artist's hand. It appears to me that there is no reason why the word 'sculpture' in the 1988 Act should be extended far beyond the meaning which that word has to ordinary members of the public. There is nothing in the particulars in this case which suggests that the manufacturers of these moulds considered themselves, or were considered by anybody else, to be artists when they designed the moulds or that they were concerned in any way with the shape or appearance of what they were making, save for the purpose of achieving a precise functional effect. Nothing in the particulars given here suggests that any consideration of appeal to anything other than functional criteria was in mind or achieved. In these circumstances, it appears to me that there is no arguable case pleaded for the existence of sculpture copyright in the moulds for these products, and I will not allow the statement of claim containing such a claim to be served on [a defendant]."
1 Citers


 
Brain -v- Ingledew Brown Bennison and Garrett (A Firm) (No 3) [1997] FSR 51
1997
ChD
Laddie J
Intellectual Property
The meaning of an alleged threat is to be decided in accordance with the understanding of an ordinary recipient in the position of the applicant, reading the letter in the normal course of business. Laddie J said: "the meaning and impact of the letters in issue has to be decided in accordance with how they would be understood by an ordinary reader . . What is particularly important is the initial impression which the letters would have on a reasonable addressee. During court proceedings, it is inevitable that the lawyers, parties and judge will read and re-read the offending passages with ever closer attention. Such meticulous analysis is not what would happen in the real world and the court must guard against being led down a path of forensic analysis to a meaning which is narrower or broader than would occur to the ordinary recipient reading the letter . . in the normal course of business"
1 Cites


 
Banier -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] FSR 812
1997


Intellectual Property
The court considered the nature of the fair dealing defence to an allegation of copyright infringement: "What amounts to fair dealing must depend on the facts of the particular case and must to a degree be a matter of impression. What is of prime importance is to consider the real objective of the party using the copyright work. Section 30 is designed to protect a critic or reviewer who may bona fide wish to use copyright material to illustrate his review or criticism."
Copyright Designs and Patenst Act 1988 30
1 Citers


 
Harrods Limited -v- Harrods (Buenos Aires) Ltd and Harrods (South America) Ltd [1997] FSR 420
15 Jan 1997
ChD
Neuberer J
Intellectual Property

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Mercury Communications Ltd -v- Weiner and others [1997] EWCA Civ 792
16 Jan 1997
CA

Intellectual Property
Trade Mark infringement - passing off - injunction.
[ Bailii ]
 
Hoechst Celanese Corporation -v- Bp Chemicals Ltd and Another [1997] EWHC 370 (Pat)
6 Feb 1997
PatC

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Beloit Technologies Inc ; Beloit Walmsley Limited -v- Valmet Paper Machinery Inc and Valmet Paper Machinery (Uk) Limited [1997] EWCA Civ 993; [1997] RPC 488
12 Feb 1997
CA
Lord Justice Hirst Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Schiemann
Intellectual Property
The court remarked, in patents cases, on the difficulty in differentiating between common general knowledge and what is known only by some, and the need to bear in mind that the notional skilled addressee is the ordinary man who might not have the advantages possessed by some employees of large companies.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Hoechst Celanese Corporation -v- Bp Chemicals Ltd and Another Times, 13 February 1997
13 Feb 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
Obviousness challenge not to be supported by extensive evidence challenges.

 
ZYX Music Gmbh -v- Chris King; Winston Williams; Delroy St Joseph (Together Trading As KWS); Dave Barker; Neil Rushton (Together Trading As Network Records) and Lambourne Productions Limited (Trading As Pinnacle Records [1997] EWCA Civ 1063
20 Feb 1997
CA

Intellectual Property
Infrigement of copyright in arrangement of song 'Please don't go'.
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Comptroller General of Trade Marks ex parte Danone [1997] EWHC Admin 206
3 Mar 1997
Admn

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Box Television Ltd -v- Haymarket Magazines Ltd Gazette, 05 March 1997; Times, 03 March 1997
3 Mar 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
A slang term 'the Box' as a trading name, was not of itself capable of supporting passing-off action.


 
 In Re Patent Application No 9204959 by Fujitsu Ltd; CA 14-Mar-1997 - Times, 14 March 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 1174; [1997] RPC 608
 
Pearce -v- Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and Others Times, 17 March 1997; Gazette, 16 April 1997
17 Mar 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction
A UK court may not decline jurisdiction in enforcing Dutch copyright law if it is asked to do so.
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) (Cmnd 7395)
1 Citers



 
 Phytheron International -v- Bourdon; ECJ 20-Mar-1997 - [1997] ECR I-1729; C-352/95; [1997] EUECJ C-352/95
 
Bourns Inc -v- In the Matter of European Patent (Uk) Number 0 223 404 In the Name of Raychem Corporation; United Kingdom Patents Numbers 2 036 754, 2 038 550 and 2 038 549 In the Name of Raychem Corporation and United [1997] EWCA Civ 1328
25 Mar 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
In Re Applications by Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc Times, 25 March 1997
25 Mar 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
There can be no copyright in a name as such; 'Elvis' insufficiently distinctive for Trade Mark.
Trade Marks Act 1994

 
Mecklermedia Corporation and Another -v- D C Congress Gmbh Times, 27 March 1997; [1998] 1 All ER
27 Mar 1997
ChD
Jacob J
Intellectual Property
The claimants, a US company with a UK subsidiary, sought summary judgment in its passing off action against the defendant German company. They claimed a trading reputation in trade shows called 'Internet World'. It appeared that the defendant had deliberately targeted visitors to the claimant's shows in its promotions in Germany. Held: The claimant had established a 'serious question' that they owned the goodwill in the name. 'It is to be noted that all the activities of DC take place in Germany and Austria - none take place within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. But I cannot think that it matters so far as the English law of passing off is concerned. To do acts here which lead to damage of goodwill by misleading the public here is plainly passing off. To do those same acts from abroad will not avoid liability.' A German trade mark action and an English passing off claim are not the same causes of action.

 
Mead Corporation and Another -v- Riverwood Multiple Packaging Division of Riverwood Etc Times, 28 March 1997
28 Mar 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
Court must have evidence of a foreign company's involvement in an infringement before a joinder could be ordered.

 
Scotch Whisky Association and Others -v- Glen Kella Distillers Ltd (No 2) Times, 01 April 1997
1 Apr 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
Re-distilled whisky may not be called 'whisky' when re-sold- not as defined.
EC Regulation 1576/89
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Goddin -v- Comptroller-General of Patents [1997] EWCA Civ 1405
15 Apr 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Microsoft Corporation -v- Electro-Wide Ltd and Another Times, 22 April 1997
22 Apr 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
Incredible defence on copyright claim could be set aside by judge summarily.

 
Scotch Whisky Association and Others -v- Glen Kella Distillers Ltd (No 2) Gazette, 23 April 1997
23 Apr 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
Re-distilled whiskey may not be called 'whiskey' when re-sold- not as defined
EC Regulation 1576/89

 
Reckitt and Colman Products Limited -v- Richardson-Vicks Inc [1997] EWCA Civ 1500
23 Apr 1997
CA

Intellectual Property
Patent revocation
[ Bailii ]
 
Lars Eric Norling, Proman Technology Ab -v- Eez-Away (Uk) Limited, Dawn Meats (Uk) Limited, Romford Wholesale Meats Limited, Beck Foods Limited [1997] EWHC Patents 369
28 Apr 1997
PatC

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]

 
 Creation Records Ltd and Another -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd; ChD 29-Apr-1997 - Times, 29 April 1997; [1997] EMLR 444; [1997] EWHC Ch 370
 
Kaisha -v- Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Limited [1997] UKPC 19; [1997] AC 728
30 Apr 1997
PC
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton
Contract, Intellectual Property
(Hong Kong) The claimants complained of the sale by the defendants of refilled cartridges for use with their printers. Held: The spare cartridge manufacturer's appeal failed: "repair is by definition something which does not amount to the manufacture of the patented article, it is not an infringement of the monopoly conferred by the patent. It cannot therefore be an unlawful act and needs no special licence to make it lawful, unless as part of a general implied licence to use the patented product at all, which is sometimes used to explain why mere user does not infringe the patentee's monopoly. But this is perhaps better regarded as a consequence of the exhaustion of the patentee's rights in respect of the particular article when it is sold. " The British Leyland case which supported the 'spares exception' seemed to be a judicial creation to what was a clear statutory monopoly. The extension of such an exception to printer cartridges which were required in order to keep a machine running was too far: "once one departs from the case in which the unfairness to the customer and the anticompetitive nature of the monopoly is as plain and obvious as it appeared to the House of Lords in British Leyland, the jurisprudential and economic basis for the doctrine becomes extremely fragile. " and "the features of unfairness and abuse of monopoly power which underlay the decision in British Leyland cannot be said to be plainly and obviously present in this case. The analogy with repair is not strong enough to bring the case within the exceptional doctrine which the House of Lords propounded. "
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks ex parte Lenzing A G [1997] EWCA Civ 1602
1 May 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Plastus Kreativ Ab -v- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company [1997] EWCA Civ 1600
1 May 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Redrow Homes Ltd -v- Bett Brothers Plc; IHCS 2-May-1997 - Times, 02 May 1997
 
Pitman Training Ltd and Another -v- Nominet UK and Another [1997] EWHC Ch 367
22 May 1997
ChD
Sir Richard Scott VC
Intellectual Property
The defendant had received a request to register the domain name 'pitman.co.uk' from the claimants, who held the trade mark. The domain was not activated, and was de-registered by the defendants and then re-registered by another company. Action was brought to try to retsore the first registration. Held: The use of the Pitman name was trhe subject of agreement between the parties, but it was arguable that long use of the name in breach of that agreement amoounted to a waiver. There was no abuse of process, there being no collateral purpose of the proceedings. The interference with contract cause of action as unarguable.
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Bourns Inc -v- Raychem Corp [1997] EWHC 372 (Pat)
12 Jun 1997
PatC

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Norton Healthcare Limited -v- Beecham Group Plc [1997] EWCA Civ 1905
19 Jun 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In the Matter of Patent Application No 8721617 By Graham Allan Stevens [1997] EWCA Civ 1974
26 Jun 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]

 
 Conran -v- Mean Fiddler Holdings Ltd and Others; ChD 26-Jun-1997 - Times, 26 June 1997

 
 Phonographic Performance Ltd -v- AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd; ChD 14-Jul-1997 - Times, 14 July 1997; Gazette, 23 July 1997

 
 Phonographic Performance Ltd -v- Maitra and Others; ChD 14-Jul-1997 - Times, 14 July 1997
 
Re a Reference Under S 12 Patents Act 1977 By Cinpres Ltd and Tamworth Mouldings Ltd In Respect of International Patent Application No Pct/Us89/02815 In Name of Michael Ladney and James Hendry [1997] EWCA Civ 2174
23 Jul 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

Patents Act 1977 12
[ Bailii ]

 
 Indata Equipment Supplies Limited (T/a Autofleet) -v- Acl Limited (Handed-Down Judgment of); CA 31-Jul-1997 - Times, 14 August 1997; [1997] EWCA Civ 2266; [1998] FSR 248

 
 Union Carbide Corporation -v- BP Chemicals Limited; ChD 31-Jul-1997 - [1998] RPC 1; [1997] EWHC 373 (Pat)
 
PRO Sieben Media Ag -v- Carlton UK Television Ltd and Another Times, 24 September 1997
24 Sep 1997
ChD

Intellectual Property
The laudable motives of the defendant in an infringement of copyright were no defence, but relieved him from liability for additional damages.
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 97(2)
1 Citers


 
Practice Note: Patents Court Times, 09 October 1997
9 Oct 1997
PatC

Intellectual Property
Patents Court is to sit for additional month in September from 1998 to cope with additional caseload.


 
 Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd -v- Woodcraft Designs (Radcliffe) Ltd; ChD 13-Oct-1997 - Times, 13 October 1997; [1998] FSR 63

 
 Fort Dodge Animal Health Limited, Arthur Webster Pty Ltd, Webster Animal Health (Uk) Ltd, Willows Francis Limited, Fort Dodge Animal Health Benelux B V -v- Akzo Novel N V, Intervet International B V; PatC 15-Oct-1997 - Times, 24 October 1997

 
 Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd -v- Akzo Nobel Nv; CA 27-Oct-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 3096; [1998] FSR 222; [1998] ILPr 732

 
 Chocosuisse, Kraft Jacobs Suchard (Schweiz) Ag, Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli (Schweiz) Ag -v- Cadbury Limited; PatC 29-Oct-1997 - Times, 25 November 1997; [1997] EWHC Patents 360
 
Chiron Corporation -v- Evans Medical Limited, Medeva Plc, Smithkline Beecham Biological SA [1997] EWHC Patents 359
3 Nov 1997
PatC

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]

 
 Parfums Christian Dior -v- Evora BV; ECJ 4-Nov-1997 - C-337/95; [1997] EUECJ C-337/95; [1997] ECR I-1603
 
Loendersloot -v- Ballantine & Son and others C-349/95; [1997] EUECJ C-349/95; [1997] ECR I-6227
11 Nov 1997
ECJ
Rodriguez Iglesias, P
European, Intellectual Property
ECJ Article 36 of the EC Treaty - Trade mark rights - Relabelling of whisky bottles.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Sabel BV -v- Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport [1997] ECR I-6191; C-251/95; [1998] RPC 199; [1997] EUECJ C-251/95
11 Nov 1997
ECJ

European, Intellectual Property
The test of whether a sign is confusing is how the use of the sign would be perceived by the average consumer of the type of goods in question. "The likelihood of confusion must therefore be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. That global appreciation of the visual, aural or conceptual similarity or the marks in question, must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. . . The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details." (A point noted by the Hearing Officer as I have said). "In that perspective, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion. It is therefore not impossible that the conceptual similarity resulting from the fact that two marks use images with analogous semantic content may give rise to a likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public."
Th court set out three possible links between a mark and a sign: "(1) where the public confuses the sign and the mark in question (likelihood of direct confusion); (2) where the public makes a connection between the proprietors of the sign and those of the mark and confuses them (likelihood of indirect confusion or association); (3) where the public considers the sign to be similar to the mark and perception of the sign calls to mind the memory of the mark, although the two are not confused (likelihood of association in the strict sense)."
1 Citers

[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]
 
MCA Records Inc, MCA Records Limited -v- Charly Records Limited, Charly International Aps; Charly Holdings Inc; Young and others [1997] EWCA Civ 2711
13 Nov 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Goddin -v- Comptroller-General of Patents [1997] EWCA Civ 2721
14 Nov 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]

 
 The European Limited -v- The Economist Newspaper Limited; CA 20-Nov-1997 - [1997] EWCA Civ 2771

 
 Cussons (New Zealand) Pty Limited -v- Unilever Plc and others; PC 20-Nov-1997 - [1998] AC 328; [1998] 2 WLR 95; [1998] RPC 369; [1997] UKPC 56

 
 Marks & Spencer Plc, Ladbrokes Plc, J Sainsbury Plc, Virgin Enterprises Ltd, British Telecommunications Plc, Telecom Securior Cellular Radio Ltd -v- One In A Million and Others; PatC 28-Nov-1997 - Times, 02 December 1997; [1997] EWHC Patents 357; (1998) FSR 265
 
Allied Domecq Spirits and Wine Ltd -v- Murray Mcdavid Ltd Times, 09 December 1997
9 Dec 1997
SCS

Intellectual Property, Scotland
Old Trade Mark infringement cases are to be viewed only with great care; on balance of convenience, the use of trade marked place name is to be allowed.
Trade Marks Act 1994 11(2)(b)

 
Adwest Engine Controls Limited (Formerly Abeco Limited), Ross Courtney Limited -v- Tavismanor Limited [1997] EWHC Patents 353
10 Dec 1997
PatC

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Drummond Murray -v- Yorkshire Fund Managers Limited Michael Hartley [1997] EWCA Civ 2958
11 Dec 1997
CA

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Brentwood Borough Council Ex Parte Peck Times, 18 December 1997; [1997] EWHC Admin 1041
18 Dec 1997
Admn
Harrison J
Intellectual Property, Judicial Review, Local Government, Media
The claimant sought judicial review of the authority's distribution to the media of a CCTV film of his attempted suicide. Held: A Local Authority which was empowered to make video recording of street events had a power to distribute resulting film being unaware of objection.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 111
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Ford Dodge -v- Akzo and Boston Scientific and Cordis [1997] EWCA Civ 3042
18 Dec 1997
CA

Intellectual Property, European

[ Bailii ]
 
Oy Parlok Ab -v- Jonesco (Preston) Limited [1997] EWHC Patents 350
18 Dec 1997
PatC

Intellectual Property

[ Bailii ]
 
Murray -v- Yorkshire Food Managers Ltd and Another Times, 18 December 1997; Gazette, 21 January 1998; Gazette, 28 January 1998
18 Dec 1997
CA

Intellectual Property
Confidential information was jointly owned but in the absence of a clear contractual limitation, it could be used by some parties to the agreement without including the others.


 
 Regina -v- Licensing Authority Established By Medicines Act 1968 (Acting By Medicines Control Agency) ex parte Rhone Poulenc Rorer Limited; May and Baker Limited; Admn 23-Dec-1997 - [1997] EWHC Admin 1176
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.