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—Alexia Haines & Kelsey Wells

Clarke Willmott—Alexia Haines & Kelsey Wells

Clarke Willmott strengthens Birmingham private client team with double appointment

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

NLJ Career Profile: Hugo Plowman, Mishcon de Reya

From global fraud cases to fishing off-grid, Mishcon de Reya’s chair of dispute resolution Hugo Plowman discusses mentors, management switching off

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law—Jennifer Hudec, Ciara Florey, Alice Ferguson & Ruth Wynn

Maguire Family Law announces partner promotion and new hires amid a record year for enquiries

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll