NIPC Law

The Rival Logos: Enterprise's to the left and Europcar's to the right In Enterprise Holdings, Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd and another [2015] EWHC 17 (Ch) (13 Jan 2015) Enterprise Holdings Inc . ( "Enterprise" ) sued Europcar UK Ltd  and its French holding company ( "Europcar" ) for trade mark infringement and passing off.  Enterprise trades under the logo to the left while Europcar had begun to use the sign on the right. The litigation in England iwa part of a global struggle between the two car hire giants over those logos.  According to Mr Justice Arnold there are some 98 trade mark disputes between those parties over Europcar's new logo around the world.  The Registration Enterprise alleged infringement of 3 of its UK registered trade Marks and 7 of its Community ones. At trial Enterprise focused its case on CTM  937,4497 ( "the CTM" ) which was registered as of 14 Sept 2010 in respect of  "vehicle rental and leasing ...

In view of recent opinion polls, I have taken another look at page 102 of the Scottish Government's white paper Scotland's Future . That contains a section headed "Intellectual Property" which consists of 4 paragraphs though only the first sets out any policy. The second is concerned with the Scottish Arbitration Centre , the third is on immigration and the fourth is on a joint venture between Visit Scotland and the Walt Disney Company and the exposition of Scottish food and drink in Florida. So what is the policy? I reproduce the first paragraph of the section on IP in full: "We will ensure continuity of the legal framework for protecting intellectual property rights. Independence will also allow Scotland to offer a simpler and cheaper, more business-friendly model than the current UK system, which is bureaucratic and expensive, especially for small firms. The UK is one of the few EU countries which does not offer a scheme that covers the bas...

In Case T-336/08 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon)  [2010]  EUECJ T-336/08, the General Court  dismissed Lindt & Sprunglli's action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 June 2008 (Case R 1332/2005-4) concerning its application for registration of a three-dimensional mark comprising the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon as a Community trade mark on the ground that the applications are devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of art 7 (1) (b) of the Community trade mark regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark). The manufacturer appealed against that decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union essentially on the ground that there was no evidence for the conclusion that the "t...

Specsavers  (Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd., Specsavers BV, Specsavers Optical Group Ltd and Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd) are a group of companies which offer glasses, contact lenses and the like at competitive prices. Specsavers' Trade Marks Specsavers have registered the following Community trade marks: (1) 1321298 and 3418928 The word mark SPECSAVERS ( "the word mark" ); (2) 449256 and 1321348 ( "the shaded logo mark" ); (3) 5608385 ( "the unshaded logo mark" ); and (4) 1358589 ( "the wordless logo mark" ) The Claim Specsavers brought an action for trade mark infringement and passing off against the supermarket chain ASDA  (Asda Stores Ltd.) for the use of the following marketing materials: (1) the ASDA Opticians' logo as used in posters: (2) the following bill board: and (3) this leaflet: ASDA's Counterclaims ...

In 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd and Others [2012] EWCA Civ 19 (24 Jan 2012) the Court of Appeal allowed a cross appeal by the claimant, 32Red Ltd. ("Red") against Mr. Justice Henderson's finding at first instance [2011] EWHC 62 (Ch) (21 Jan 2011) [2011] ETMR 21that Red's number mark had not been infringed but dismissed the appeal by the defendants, the William Hill group of companies ("WHG"), against his finding that all of Red's marks were valid and all but one of them had been infringed. The facts of this case are complex but I set out the background and summarized the legal issues in my post Trade Marks: 32Red v WHG of 23 Jan 2011. The Grounds of Appeal Lord Justice Etherton described WHG's attack on the trial judge's judgment as "a full-scale, wide-ranging attack on the Judge's analysis and conclusions on virtually every aspect of his judgment" alleging not just errors of principle but also failure by the judge to a...

The challenge by the Prince of Hanover to the decision of the First Board of Appeal upholding the examiner's decision to dismiss the Prince's application to register his family coat of arms as a trade mark is a peach of a case. Unfortunately, the transcript of T-397/09 Prinz von Hannover v OHIM [2011] T-EUECJ 397/09 (25 May 2011) is in French. No English or even Anglophone judges or lawyers seem to have taken part. Before I go into the facts of the case it is worth reading the Wikipedia articles on the House of Hanover and the House of Windsor for some background. It will be seen that the link with Hanover was broken when Queen Victoria acceded to the throne. The royal family changed its name from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor at height of the First World War - just about the time of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. The current head of the House of Hanover is Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover , the third husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco . His Royal Highness...

This was Mr Justice Henderson's judgment in the trial of an action between two Gibraltar based online gambling concerns. The claimant in 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 62 (Ch) (21 Jan 2011) had sued for infringement of Community trade mark 2814424 and British trade mark 2509861 . The defendants had counterclaimed for invalidation of those registrations. The signs to which the claimants objected were the words "32vegas.com", "32vegas" and "32v" and three devices incorporating the numeral 32. In a rather long judgment, His Lordship identified the following issues and considered them in the following order: whether the CTM been infringed under art 9 (1) (b) of the CTM regulation? whether it had been infringed under art 9 (1) (c); whether the CTM registration was invalid; whether the British trade mark registration was invalid; and whether the British mark had been infringed. Mr. Justice Henderson found that the ...

In K-Swiss v OHIM [2008] EUECJ C-144/07 (2 October 2008) the ECJ dismissed an appeal against the CFI's refusal to entertain an application to set aside a Board of Appeal decision on the ground that the proceedings had been filed out of time. Art 63 (5) of the CTM regulation actions against decisions of the Boards of Appeal must be brought within 2 months of notification. Rule 61 (2) of the implementing regulation requires notifications to be made by the following means: "(a) by post in accordance with Rule 62; (b) by hand delivery in accordance with Rule 63; (c) by deposit in a post box at [OHIM] in accordance with Rule 64; (d) by telecopier and other technical means in accordance with Rule 65; (e) by public notification in accordance with Rule 66.' Notification of the Board's decision was made by DHL courier rather than by post but there was evidence that the decision had been communicated to the applicant by 28 Oct 2005. Proceedings were not instituted ...