‘Civil litigation should be conducted “with cards on the table – face up” and the courts should not “sanction an act of deliberate concealment” by one of the parties, appeal judges have ruled.’
Legal Futures, 10th May 2022
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The owner of one of London’s most famous hotels has asked a judge to jail a 64-year-old divorcee for infringing a trade mark.’
The Independent, 21st February 2022
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The English courts can still grant a pan-EU trade mark injunction in proceedings commenced before the end of the Brexit implementation period, the High Court has confirmed.’
Law Society's Gazette, 29th December 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Two new sentencing guidelines for sentencing individuals or companies that sell or possess counterfeit goods intended for sale were published by the Sentencing Council today, following consultation.’
Sentencing Council, 5th August 2021
Source: www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk
‘There really was a battle of Revolax between Russia and Sweden in 1808 but that has nothing to do with this article. Revolax is also the name of a hyaluronic acid dermal filler manufactured by the Korean company Across Co., Ltd (“Across”) which Fox Group International Ltd. (“Fox”) enjoyed the exclusive right to distribute in the UK.’
NIPC Law, 23rd July 2021
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘A Numbers Game? Statistics in Public Law Cases’
Supreme Court, 5th July 2021
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘Banksy will have to reveal his identity if he wants to regain control of his artistic portfolio, judges have said as they stripped him of a total of six trademarks.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd June 2021
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The Sazerac group is responsible for a wide variety of well-known spirits, including Southern Comfort. This case concerned one its bourbon brands, Eagle Rare. Sazerac had a UK and EU registered trade mark for “EAGLE RARE” in respect of class 33.’
3PB, 3rd November 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The criteria for assessing the distinctive character of three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the appearance of the product itself are no different from those applicable to other categories of mark.’
3PB, 3rd November 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘The University of Law has lost major elements of a trade mark dispute against a start-up that helps teenagers get into law school, after claiming the branding could damage its reputation.’
Law Society's Gazette, 5th November 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The protection offered by a registered trade mark is defined by the particular goods and services for which it is registered. But how broad can a trade mark specification be? Too narrow and you risk having no control over the use of your brand in closely linked goods or services, and with little wriggle room for protection as you expand your offering. Too broad and you run the risk of having the trade mark registration challenged.’
Technology Law Update, 12th May 2020
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘On 23 May 2016 Sky PLC and its subsidiaries Sky AG and Sky UK Ltd. (“Sky”) issued proceedings against Skykick UK Ltd and Skykick Inc.(“Skykick”) for infringement of their EU and UK trade marks and passing off. Skykick denied infringement and passing off and counterclaimed for declarations that the trade marks were wholly or partially invalid on the grounds that the specified goods and services were unclear and imprecise and the applications for those trade marks had been made in bad faith.’
NIPC Law, 9th May 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Businesses will need to avoid scattergun approaches to registering trade marks following an eagerly awaited High Court ruling. In Sky plc v SkyKick UK Ltd, Lord Justice Arnold ruled that a software company had infringed a trade mark of broadcaster Sky – but strongly criticised Sky for filing trade mark applications as a weapon. IP experts said the ruling would significantly change trade mark practice.’
Law Society's Gazette, 30th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This was an action for trade mark infringement. passing off and invalidation of one of the defendant’s trade marks. The claimants were the Delaware company, Planetart LLC, and its English subsidiary, Planetart Ltd. Those companies offer a photo printing service called FreePrints that is best explained in the How it Works video on the home page of their website. The defendants, Photobox Ltd. and Photobox Free Prints Ltd. offer a service that is similar to the claimants’.’
NIPC Law, 11th April 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘This was an action for trade mark infringement and passing off between two medium-sized enterprises. Mr David Stone sitting as an Enterprise Judge heard 9 witnesses on 13 and 14 Feb and delivered judgment on 20 March 2020. The costs that the losing party will be ordered to pay to the successful party will be capped at £50,000. It is it an example of how an intellectual property dispute should be resolved. Save that the Wood Green County Court’s jurisdiction had been limited to patents snd designs when it opened, this is probably just the sort of case that Sir Derek Oulton would have had in mind when he recommended the establishment of patents country courts in 1986.’
NIPC Law, 8th April 2020
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
‘Liverpool FC’s attempt to trademark the word “Liverpool” has been rejected by the government’s Intellectual Property Office due to the “geographical significance” of the city.’
The Guardian, 26th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘For more than 140 years, businesses, brands and even pop bands have put pen to paper in the hope of creating a distinctive trade mark that captures the public’s imagination.’
Daily Telegraph, 29th June 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘An author has criticised the BBC for plagiarising her trademarked book title, saying that securing legal rights “won’t actually stop white women or big organisations ripping you off”. Yomi Adegoke wrote Slay in Your Lane alongside Elizabeth Uviebinene, which they describe as a “black women’s bible”, and trademarked the term when the book was released.’
Daily Telegraph, 28th May 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘This was a very interesting case for two reasons. First, the claim was for the infringement of the claimant’s British and European Union trade marks for educational services, training, seminars and the like relating to psychology by providing mental health care in its hospitals and training in its use under an acronym that was the same as those registered marks. Secondly, the trial of the action took place outside London the first time in the history of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”).’
NIPC Law, 21st April 2019
Source: nipclaw.blogspot.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024