header-logo header-logo

23 October 2015
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Trade mark

Flynn Pharma Ltd v Drugsrus Ltd and another [2015] EWHC 2759 (Ch), [2015] All ER (D) 53 (Oct)

The Chancery Division ruled, among other things, that the defendant companies’ use of the word “FLYNN” when rebranding imported Epanutin, a drug used in the treatment of epilepsy, was a “trade mark use” and did not fall within s 11(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and, therefore infringed the claimant company’s trade mark. The defendants could only rely on Art 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to defeat the claim of infringement if they could show that Epanutin had been placed on the market in the exporting member state by the same entity seeking to prevent its import into the UK and they had failed to do so.

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll