header-logo header-logo

Trademarks

01 August 2014
Issue: 7617 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 2498 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 246 (Jul)

In the case of a survey as to confusion, the question whether the survey was likely to be of real value might readily be answered in the negative in a case where the goods or services in question were ordinary consumer goods or services and the judge felt that there would be no real difficulty in the court determining the issue of confusion without a survey. Conversely, in the case of a survey as to acquired distinctiveness, the court might feel that it was not able to determine such a dispute based on its own experience and/or the court might feel the need to guard against an idiosyncratic decision. A further possible distinction between a confusion survey and a distinctiveness survey was that the former might involve a prediction as to the likelihood of something happening whereas a distinctiveness survey addressed the issue of whether something had happened. Further, whether the survey in question related to distinctiveness or confusion,

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll