header-logo header-logo

16 November 2012
Issue: 7538 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Trade mark

Hollister Incorporated and another company v Medik Ostomy Supplies Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1419, [2012] All ER (D) 114 (Nov)

Article 13 of Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2004/48 (on the enforcement of intellectual property rights) did not require a court undertaking an account of the profits made by the infringer to adjust that account by reference to the profits lost by the right holder. It was incumbent on national authorities to adopt appropriate measures to deal with infringements, including infringements resulting from a failure to give notice. Such measures had to be proportionate, and they had to satisfy the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. An account of profits did not compensate the trade mark owner for the losses he had suffered. It simply deprived the infringer of the profits he had made from an activity in which he should never have engaged. Therefore, it ensured the infringer had not benefited from his wrong, but contained no element of punishment. Moreover, as an equitable remedy, it might be refused if, for any reason, it would produce an

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

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Carpmaels & Ransford—Christopher Stothers

Heavyweight patent litigator will bolster Carpmaels Ransford’s rapidly growing Litigation team as firm marks its 250th anniversary

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll