Search for: "LJS CO. v. Marks"
Results 1 - 20
of 53
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2014, 3:55 am
[1] AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2012] EWHC 35 (Ch), per HHJ Cooke at paragraph 24 [2] Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns [1996] AC 412 [3] AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2013] EWCA Civ 45, per LJ Patten at paragraph 47 [4] AIB Group (UK) plc v Mark Redler & Co Solicitors [2014] UKSC 58, per Lord Toulson at paragraph 64 [5] ibid., per Lord Reed at… [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 6:04 am
Lewison LJ summarised the position in Honda Motor Co Ltd v Neesam [2006] EWHC 1051 para 5 (not on bailii) as:Consent must be unequivocally demonstrated.An intention to renounce the right to a trade mark will normally be gathered from an express statement.Although consent may be inferred in some circumstances, an actual consent (not a deemed consent) be established. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 7:43 am
In this post, Mark Chapman, Lauren Cousins and Jessica Eaton, all associates at CMS, comment on the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Bott & Co Solicitors v Ryanair DAC [2022] UKSC 8. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 7:34 am
Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer PLC Flowers Direct Online Limited [2009] EWHC 1095 (Ch) (IPKat post here), the English Court of Appeal examined in detail the nature and role of survey evidence. [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 12:21 am
Arnold LJ concludes: [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:06 pm
Earlier today this Kat posted this note on Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), the latest in a line of important trade mark rulings from Mr Justice Arnold in the Chancery Division, England and Wales. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 8:22 am
She also noted [at 50] that in Comic Enterprises Ltd v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 7:35 am
NVidia v Hardware Labs [2016] EWHC 3135(December 2016)This was the exam question posed here. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 2:25 am
Not only that, but they were not present in the Kiddee Case (you can see that the tiger has the same colour all over its body).On this point, Kitchin LJ referred to Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 3145 (Ch). [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 1:59 am
Arnold LJ adopted a different interpretation of Case C-98/13 Blomqvist v Rolex SA than the trial judge in reaching this conclusion.Permission for Amazon to appeal to the UK Supreme Court was refused by Arnold LJ in a subsequent judgment on form of order.Targeting is a tricky doctrine. [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 2:36 am
Court of Appeal finds no reason to swipe right in MATCH v MUZMATCH online dating disputeMatch Group, LLC v Muzmatch Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 454 (April 2023)“MATCH” is hardly a distinctive trade mark for an online dating, aka matchmaking, service. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 8:17 am
Kitchin LJ was supported by Floyd LJ and Sir Geoffrey Vos, both of wh [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 7:05 am
Indeed, said the questioner, given the potential of that reference to the CJEU to undermine Kitchin LJ’s “free-flowing” analysis in Cartier it was surprising that Kitchin LJ made no mention of it in his judgment.All these costs ... who covers them? [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 7:07 am
Samsung’s defeat on smartwatch faces to go to the Court of AppealMontres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 3:18 pm
In England and Wales we have seen a couple of examples of previously acquiescent co-users of the same name coming to quite unnecessary blows. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 1:30 am
Maurice Kay LJ in effect held that only sufficiently “co-operative” and “credible” children could benefit from the Rashid/ R(S): the now infamous “hypothetical spectrum”. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 12:31 pm
This was written by Mark Adams under the headline ‘Rotten to the Core’. [read post]
13 May 2015, 4:37 am
And Dillon LJ in Anheuser-Busch at pp 475-476 cited Spalding, Star Industrialand Inland Revenue Commissioners v Mullerto make the same point. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 7:17 am
" Comapring the respective shapes alone, and ignoring the markings on the side and the eyes at the front, he found that there had been infringement.In the Court of Appeal, Kitchin LJ gave judgment and held that the trial judge had erred in two respects. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 2:34 am
The Court held that the judge at first instance had not properly applied the legal test for the implication of contractual terms, as established in Marks & Spencer Plc v. [read post]
