Prior litigation had been an infringement action in which the Defendants denied both validity and infringement, and succeeded on infringement but failed on validity and were ordered to pay costs of the validity issue. By the time of the second infringement action the Defendants said they had found new evidence of prior art.
Held: They were not allowed to challenge validity, it having been decided against them in the first proceedings. It was a matter res judicata.
Judges:
Romer J
Citations:
(1896) 13 RPC 141
Cited by:
Cited – Special Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and Another CA 12-Jan-2007
The defendants had opposed the grant of the trade mark which they were now accused of infringing. The claimants said that having failed at the opposition stage, they were now estopped from challenging the validity of the mark.
Held: It was not . .
Appeal from – Shoe Machinery Company v Cutlan 1896
The patentee had succeeded at trial in obtaining a declaration of validity and a determination of infringement, and, in subsequent proceedings, the infringer sought to challenge the validity of the patent by raising a fresh argument based on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.247702
