Latest News

Information Commissioner to get New Powers Information Commissioner to get New Powers
Protecting Your Business Interests Protecting Your Business Interests
HSE 10 Point Health and Safety Compliance Plan HSE 10 Point Health and Safety Compliance Plan
Landlord Successful in Opposing Assignment to New Company Landlord Successful in Opposing Assignment to New Company
Landlord Fails in Hope Value Claim Landlord Fails in Hope Value Claim
Database Extraction Clarified Database Extraction Clarified
Suitable Alternative Employment and Redundancy Suitable Alternative Employment and Redundancy
IP Case Sounds Warning IP Case Sounds Warning
If it isn't in the Documentation If it isn't in the Documentation
TUPE - Split Service Provision After Transfer TUPE - Split Service Provision After Transfer

Registry Decisions Do Not Bind Court

The decision in the 2006 case involving L’Oréal, in which the cosmetics giant was rebuffed in its attempt to prevent a smaller producer, called Special Effects, bringing to the market products which could be confused with its own ‘Special FX’ range, has been reversed.
 
Special Effects had been granted a trade mark, despite the opposition of L’Oréal, over the name ‘Special Effects’. This occurred very shortly before L’Oréal launched its Special FX beauty products range. Special Effects went to court alleging trade mark infringement. When L’Oréal attempted to defend the claim, disputing the validity of the trade mark, the High Court ruled that the matter had been heard by the Trade Mark Registry and therefore the arguments could not be reheard by the Court. L’Oréal appealed.
 
The Court of Appeal judged that arguments already heard by the Trade Mark Registry can, in certain circumstances, be re-argued in court. The opposition proceedings offered by the Trade Mark Registry do not have the finality of a decision of the court.
 
 
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.