header-logo header-logo

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

Trademarks

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll