Posts

Showing posts from 2022

Trade Marks - Re FOOTWARE, Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV

Image
Author Anthony Appleyard   Licence  CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons A   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Zacaroli) Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV [2021] EWHC 1438 In  Trade Marks - Equisafety v Battle Hayward and Bower   7 Jan 2021 IP Northwest, I discussed Mr Nicholas Caddick QC's judgment in Equisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower, Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 3296 (IPEC) (8 Dec 2021) where the defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that the registration of MERCURY for a range of high visibility equestrian products was invalid on the ground that the mark was descriptive. This is another case where the registration of a word mark was challenged on a similar ground. The mark in question was FOOTWARE  and registration was sought by Nike Innovate CV for a wide range of goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 relating to computing and telecommunications. The application was opposed by Puma SE on the following grounds: "i) Under s. 3 (1) (b), that the ma

Patents - Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd.

Image
  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Meade)  Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021) This was a claim for patent infringement by Promptu Systems Corporation ("Promptu") against Sky UK Ltd. and various related companies ("Sky") and a counterclaim by Sky for revocation. The patent in suit had been granted for a system and method of voice recognition near a wireline node of a network supporting cable television and/or video delivery by the European Patent Office under publication number EP1290889B1 . The action and counterclaim came on before Mr Justice Meade on 14 to 16 June 2021 and his lordship delivered judgment on 19 July 2021 (see Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 2021 (Pat) (19 July 2021). By para [241] of his judgment, Mr Justice Meade held that the patent was invalid and should be revoked but had it been valid it would have been infringed. The Invention The abstract describ