Special Effects Ltd v L’Oreal Sa and others: ChD 17 Mar 2006

The defendant had previously opposed the registration of the claimant’s trade mark before the Comptroller General, but failed. The claimant now in infringement procedings sought the strike out of the defendant’s challenge to its validity.
Held: Though there were differences in the law between opposition proceedings and invalidity proceedings, an action estoppel applied.

Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor
[2006] EWHC 481 (Ch), Times 01-May-2006
Trade Marks Act 1984 38(2)
England and Wales
CitedHormel Foods Corporation v Antilles Landscape Investments NV ChD 24-Jan-2005
The claimant had alread challenged the validity of the defendant’s registered trade mark, but sought to do so now on grounds which could have been advanced in the earlier case. The claimant owned the trade mark ‘SPAM’ for canned meats, and the . .
See also‘Special Effects’: Application No 2237923 TMR 22-Aug-2002
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromSpecial 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.239191