Smith v Grigg Ltd: CA 1924

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain infringement of a registered design.
Held: Where the design was of recent origin, had not been established by a court of law, and where its validity could be doubted, the court would adopt a practice based upon that in patents law, of refusing an interlocutory injunction.
Atkin LJ said: ‘the plaintiff’s prima facie case must be a strong one so far as the question of validity is concerned, for he asserts a monopoly and must give more proof of the right he claims than is afforded by the mere granting of the patent’

Atkin LJ
[1924] 1 KB 655, 93 LJKB 237, 130 LT 697, 41 RPC 149, 68 SJ 561, 40 TLR 248
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAmerican Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.182270