NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) easyGroup Ltd v Jaybank Leisure Ltd [2025] EWHC 3077 (IPEC) (21 Nov 2025) This was a claim for trade mark infringement.   easyGroup was the registered proprietor  of UK trade mark UK00002349891 , an image of which appears above. The mark was registered for goods and services in several classes, including "[r]ental and hire of… motorised vehicles, non-motorised vehicles… and means of transport; advisory and information services relating to the aforesaid services; information services relating to transportation services, including information services provided on-line from a computer database or the Internet." easyGroup Ltd ("easyGroup") complained that Jaybank Leisure Ltd ("Jaybank") had infringed its trade mark by supplying vehicle rental and sales services under the EASIHIRE sign. Jaybank denied infringement and alleged non-use of the mark by easyGroup.  The action came on for trial ...

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lady Justice King and Lords Justices Arnold and Birss) Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another [2024] EWCA Civ 29 (26 Jan 2024) In  Trade Marks - Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe   I discussed Mr Justice Miles's judgment in  Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another [2023] EWHC 706 (Ch) (28 March 2023) in this publication on 31 March 2023.  In that action, Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL ("Iconix") sued Drean Pairs Europe Inc. and Top Glory Trading Group Inc. ("Dream Pairs") for trade mark infringement under s.10 (2) (b) and (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Mr Justice Miles dismissed the claim for the reasons I set out in my case note.   The Appeal Iconix appealed on the ground that the judge had failed correctly to assess the likelihood of post-sale confusion and on related grounds concerning his assessment of the similarity between Iconix's r...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Marks and Spencer Plc v Aldo Stores Ltd . [2023]EWHC 178 (IPEC) 31 Jan 2023 This was a claim for the infringement of the following registered designs: 6134278   6134280   6134282   6134284 , and  6134276 . The designs were registered on 29 April 2021 by Marks and Spencer Plc ("M&S"). M&S complained that Aldi Stores Ltd ("Aldi") had infringed those registered designs by marketing and selling gin liqueurs in the following  bottles from Nov 2021: The action came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 16 Dec 2022 who delivered judgment on 31 Jan 2023.  The last of the 5 designs was not pursued.   At para [84] of his judgment, the learned judge concluded that the marketing of those gin liqueur products infringed the first 4 registered designs ( Marks and Spencer Plc v Aldi Stores Ltd . [2023] EWHC 178 (IPEC)). Legislation Judge Hacon noted that the Registere...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr David Stone)  Lutec (UK) Ltd and others v Cascade Holdings Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 1907 (Pat) (09 July 2021) This case started as an action for the infringement of two registered Community designs , namely 000540927-0001 and  000540927-0002 . Before the action came on for trial, the transition or implementation period provided by art 126 of the agreement by which the UK withdraw from the EU expired.   The Senior Courts of England and Wales ceased to be Community design courts and registered Community designs ceased to apply to the UK.  Art 54 (1) (b) of that agreement provided for holders of registered Community designs to be awarded equivalent registered designs in the UK (see Jane Lambert  How Brexit has changed IP Law   17 Jan 2021 NIPC Brexit and Jane Lambert IP after Brexit   26 Jan 2021 Slideshare). Those registered designs are for "Interior lights, Exterior lights...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Judge Melissa Clarke)  Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) (21 Nov2019) This was an action for infringement of copyright in a prototype for a bed linen range.  An example of a duvet cover from that range appears at the top of the above photo together with an example of the allegedly infringing item at the bottom. The claimant's product, known as "Evangeline" was sold as part of the "Kylie Minogue at Home" range even though the prototype had been made by one of the claimant's employees and not by Kylie Minogue.   The defendant's, called "Amore", was under the "Buy Caprice Home" brand even though it had been designed not by the Caprice in question (the celebrity Caprice Bourret) but by a freelance designer. In her judgment of 21 Nov 2019, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed the claim on the ground that there had been no copying.  She ...