Tag: Intellectual Property

Antonio Munoz Y Cia S A , Superior Fruticola S A v Frumar Limited, Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited: PatC 26 Mar 1999

European legislation which controlled the naming and use of patented grape varieties did not provide for actions directly between the owner of the mark and an infringer. The purpose of the legislation was consumer protection achieved in other ways.

Times 02-Apr-1999
EC Treaty
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal to – Antonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Antonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136047

Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others: CA 15 Nov 2013

The claimant appealed against rejection of its claim for trade mark infrimgement. It had a goodwill in China, and, it claimed among the chinese community in the UK. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed.

Patten, Pitchford LJJ, Sir John Mummery
[2013] EWCA Civ 1465, [2014] ECC 4, [2014] FSR 20
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At ChD – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others ChD 2-Nov-2012
The claimants asserted infringement by the defendants of their registered Community Trade Mark by their announcement of a new TV station ‘NOW TV’. The defendants in turn challenged the validity of the mark.
Held: The court found that a . .
SeeAlso – Starbucks (Hk) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others CA 13-Sep-2012
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518039

Nike International Ltd, Avar, Grove, Kilgore and Friton (Patent): IPO 2 Aug 2013

An uncontested application was filed by Nike International Ltd. under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that both Bruce J. Kilgore and Michael R. Friton should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Eric P. Avar and James A. Grove in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

[2013] UKIntelP o31013
Bailii
Patenta Act 1977 13(1)
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517181

Philippe Bencteux and Steevy Cordette (Patent): IPO 9 Sep 2013

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Philippe Bencteux under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Steevy Cordette should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Philippe Bencteux in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Mr A R Bushell
[2013] UKIntelP o36313, EP (UK) 1792638
Bailii
Patents Act 1977 13(1)
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517189

Monkey Tower Limited v Ability International Limited (Patent): IPO 15 Aug 2013

IPO The patent relates to a platform for allowing overhead access in an office environment and has previously been the subject of a separate claim to entitlement before the comptroller. The claimant argued that the invention is either anticipated by the earlier disclosure in a US patent or that it comprises trivial design features regarded as obvious in the light of this earlier disclosure. The US patent is concerned with an extensible ladder and scaffold construction. The patentee denied that D1 anticipates or renders obvious any of the claims of the granted patent, but submitted conditional amendments in the event that the patent was found to be invalid. The hearing officer issued a non-binding preliminary evaluation early on in proceedings in which he expressed the view that claim 1 was anticipates by the prior art. Despite the view expressed in this preliminary, the patentee maintained the validity of the granted patent.
In deciding the issue on the basis of the papers on file, the hearing officer agreed with the claimant’s argument that claim 1 of the patent was anticipated. He considered the arguments against conditional amendments and found that there was a basis for an allowable amendment. The patentee was given a period of time to submit amendments under section 75 or else the patent would be revoked. Any amendments filed would be subject to opposition. Costs were awarded to the claimant, with account taken for the patentee’s insistence on maintaining the patent in its unamended form despite the preliminary evaluation, and also the filing of evidence by the claimant which sought to broaden the pleaded case.

Mr H Jones
[2013] UKIntelP o33413, GB2432573
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517179