NIPC Law

The Rolls Building, Royal Courts of Justice Author:  Muhammad Karns Licence:  CC BY-SA 4.0   Source:  Wikimedia Commons J ane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Flowerbx Ltd v Flowers Box London Ltd [2026] EWHC 2233 (IPEC) (7 Sept 2026) This was an action for infringement under s.10 (2) and s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and a counterclaim for invalidity under s.47 (1)  and/or revocation under s.46 (1) .  The trade mark in suit was UK trade mark no. 3,223,726 , for the word mark FLOWERBX.  The allegedly infringing signs included FLOWERSBOX, FLOWERS BOX and FLOWERS BOX LONDON in various formats. The action and counterclaim came on before Recorder Amanda Michaels, sitting as a judge of the High Court on 16 and 17 July 2026.  By her judgment in Flowerbx Ltd v Flowers Box London Ltd [2026] EWHC 2233 (IPEC) which she handed down on 7 Sept 2026, the learned recorder found for the claimant on the ...

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 ...