header-logo header-logo

11 September 2008
Issue: 7336 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Trademarks

esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance plc [2008] EWCA Civ 842, [2008] All ER (D) 313 (Jul)

In assessing the likelihood of trademark confusion, this must be ascertained from the viewpoint of the average consumer, and a global assessment must be made of all the relevant factors (which involves examining all the aural, visual and conceptual similarities of the marks and assessing the weight to be given to each of the relevant characteristics).

 Given that the critical issue of confusion of any kind is to be assessed from the viewpoint of the average consumer, an expert’s report is of little value in evaluating the likelihood of confusion (although there may be a role for an expert where the markets in question are ones with which judges are unfamiliar).

Issue: 7336 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll