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

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson—Simone Ketchell

Browne Jacobson adds top property litigation Partner in record real estate expansion

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher—Megan Goodyer

Fieldfisher expands Personal Injury team with impressive partner from Stewarts

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Clyde & Co—Jack Holling

Global firm strengthens insurance practice with appointment of partner

NEWS
Should every solicitor found to have acted dishonestly face automatic striking off? The answer, argues John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke LLP in NLJ this week, is no 
Winning an arbitral award against a state is one thing; enforcing it is another
Can government success in court tell us whether the rule of law is healthy? 
Poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses can trigger litigation before the real dispute is even addressed
As cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, family lawyers are increasingly confronting the challenges it creates on divorce
back-to-top-scroll