Posts

Showing posts with the label Act 1994

Trade Marks - Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe

Image
  Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts, Intellectual Property List (Mr Justice Miles) Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another [2023] EWHC 706 (Ch) (28 March 2023) This was a trade mark dispute.  The claimant was the owner of the Umbro brand, one of the biggest and most famous in sportswear.  It holds a number of well-known trade marks in the UK including the following which is registered under trade mark number UK00000991668  for “articles of clothing for use in sports, athletics or gymnastics.” The claimant also holds this mark which was filed for footwear and clothing at the European Intellectual Property Office in 2003 and is now registered in the UK: The defendants distribute football boots and other footwear and clothing through Amazon and eBay,  Their goods are marked with the following logo as in the photo of the green football boot above.   The defendants have registered that sign as a UK trade mark for clothing ...

The Bentley Appeal: Bentley Motors Limited v Bentley 1962 Limited and another

Image
Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison and Arnold and Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Bentley Motors Limited v Bentley 1962 Limited and another [2020] EWCA Civ 1726 (16 Dec2020) This was an appeal by Bentley Motors Limited against Judge Hacon's decision in Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd [2019] EWHC 2925 (Ch) (1 Nov 2019) which I discussed in Trade Marks - Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd.   on 3 Nov 2019.  In that decision, the learned judge held that Bentley Motors had infringed trade mark numbers  1180215 ,    2177779A  and  2505233  by marketing and distributing clothing and headgear with the word "BENTLEY" in combination with the motor company's winged "B" emblem. The above picture is an example of the use of the combination to which the claimants objected. Grounds of Appeal Bentley Motors' grounds of appeal were as follows.  First, the judge had been wrong to hold that the average consumer of...