header-logo header-logo

11 August 2017
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Trade mark

R v M; R v C; R v T [2017] UKSC 58, [2017] All ER (D) 20 (Aug)

On the true construction of s 92(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, signs (or trade marks) which had been applied to goods for which there had originally been an authorisation of manufacture by the registered trade mark holder, but whose sale had not been authorised by him, fell squarely within the description in s 92(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. 

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll