Latest News

Trade Marks - Speed of the Essence Trade Marks - Speed of the Essence
New Rules for Company Names New Rules for Company Names
New Powers for ICO for Data Breaches New Powers for ICO for Data Breaches
Who Can Read Your Emails? Who Can Read Your Emails?
New CCTV Guidelines New CCTV Guidelines
Patent Office Issues Guidance on Software Patents Patent Office Issues Guidance on Software Patents
Warning For Directors on IP Breach Warning For Directors on IP Breach
Patent Office Issues Guidance on Software Patents Patent Office Issues Guidance on Software Patents
Copyright Law Relaxation Ahead? Copyright Law Relaxation Ahead?
Software Owned by Contractor - Court Software Owned by Contractor - Court

Registry Decisions Do Not Bind Court

The decision in the 2006 case involving L’Oréal, in which the cosmetics giant was rebuffed in its attempt to prevent a smaller producer, called Special Effects, bringing to the market products which could be confused with its own ‘Special FX’ range, has been reversed.
 
Special Effects had been granted a trade mark, despite the opposition of L’Oréal, over the name ‘Special Effects’. This occurred very shortly before L’Oréal launched its Special FX beauty products range. Special Effects went to court alleging trade mark infringement. When L’Oréal attempted to defend the claim, disputing the validity of the trade mark, the High Court ruled that the matter had been heard by the Trade Mark Registry and therefore the arguments could not be reheard by the Court. L’Oréal appealed.
 
The Court of Appeal judged that arguments already heard by the Trade Mark Registry can, in certain circumstances, be re-argued in court. The opposition proceedings offered by the Trade Mark Registry do not have the finality of a decision of the court.
 
 
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.