Posts

Showing posts from June, 2024

Trade Marks - easyGroup Ltd. v Beauty Perfectionists Ltd. and Others

Image
  Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mrs Justice Bacon) easyGroup Ltd v Beauty Perfectionists Ltd and other s [2024] EWHC 1441 (Ch) (13 June 2024) This was an action for trade mark infringement and a counterclaim for partial revocation of one of the claimant's marks. The proceedings began on 5 March 2020 after the UK had left the EU but while EU law continued to apply in the UK in accordance with art 127 (1) of the agreement for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU . The action and counterclaim came on for trial before Mrs Justice Bacon sitting as an EU trade marks court between 13 and 15 and 19 and 20 March and 11 June 2024. She handed down her judgment on 13 June 2024 (see  easyGroup Ltd v Beauty Perfectionists Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 1441 (Ch)). By para [173] of her judgment, she held that the defendants' signs did not infringe under art 9 (2) (b) or (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade

Trade Marks - Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd. v Nanthakumar and others

Image
Author Edward Hards   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Melissa Clarke)  Morley's (Fast Foods) Ltd v Sivakumar and others [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC) (10 June 2024) This is one of the first accessory liability cases since the Supreme Court's judgment in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and Another [2024] UKSC 17 on 15 May 2024 which I discussed in  Trade Marks: Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed   on 2 June 2024 and in Another Beverly Hills Polo Club Appeal   in NIPC Branding on 4 June 2024.   The claimant is the franchisor of the Morley's chain of fast food outlets which operate mainly in London.  The seventh defendant, Kunalingam Kunatheeswaran, franchises a competing fast food chain called "Metro's".  The other defendants were his franchisees  The claimant complained that  Metro's signage infringed its trade marks and misrepresented a connection with Morley's business.  It