header-logo header-logo

27 November 2015
Issue: 7678 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Passing off

Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and another v Intellectual Property Agency Ltd and another [2015] EWHC 3256 (IPEC), [2015] All ER (D) 114 (Nov)

The Chancery Division considered claims for passing off and trade mark infringement against the first defendant company, IPAL, which charged large sums to users of its services for submitting renewal applications for trade-marks and patents. The court held that both passing off and trade mark infringement were made out, and that the second defendant, who owned IPAL, was jointly liable with it.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll