-
Jan 21, 2025 | 
pinsentmasons.com | Emily Swithenbank |Gill Dennis
A recent court of Court of Appeal decision is “game changing” for brand owners and signals a renewed commitment by the UK courts to protecting brand identity and ensuring fair competition, experts have said.
Gill Dennisand Emily Swithenbank of Pinsent Masons were commenting after the Court of Appeal handed down itsdecision in Thatchers Cider Company Limed v Aldi Stores Limited.
-
Oct 16, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Gill Dennis
The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in TVIS Limited v Howserv Services Limited & Others [2024] EWCA Civ 1103, trade mark infringement proceedings concerning the confusing similarity between the marks VETSURE and PETSURE, both used for pet insurance.
-
Oct 9, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Gill Dennis |Emily Swithenbank
The recent IPEC decision in AGA Rangemaster Group v (1) UK Innovations Group (2) Michael McGinley[1] was noteworthy for two reasons: (1) considering exhaustion of trade mark rights issues in the under explored context of refurbished and adapted consumer goods within the UK; and (2) helping us to understand the scope of the knowledge test for accessory liability as developed by the Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed[2].
-
Oct 7, 2024 | 
worldtrademarkreview.com | Gill Dennis
Shutterstock/Alexandre Rotenberg United Kingdom Legal updates: case law analysis and intelligence
-
Sep 3, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Gill Dennis |Emily Swithenbank
We are accustomed to judges tackling exhaustion of intellectual property rights issues in the context of parallel trade, often in the pharmaceutical sector. The recent decision of the IPEC in AGA Rangemaster Group v (1) UK Innovations Group (2) Michael McGinley[1] is, therefore, noteworthy for considering exhaustion of trade mark rights in the context of the resale of consumer goods within national boundaries. What happened in this case?
-
Sep 2, 2024 | 
pinsentmasons.com | Emily Swithenbank |Gill Dennis
A recent ruling shows the challenge UK brand owners can face if seeking to prevent other businesses from revamping their original products and selling them on the resale market, experts in brand protection have said.
Emily Swithenbank and Gill Dennis of Pinsent Masons were commenting after the High Court of England and Wales ruled on a dispute over the re-sale of revamped AGA cookers.
-
May 15, 2024 | 
pinsentmasons.com | Gill Dennis
Directors of companies that infringe trade marks can only be held personally liable as an accessory to that infringement in the UK if they know that what their company was doing amounted to trade mark infringement, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.
-
Mar 26, 2024 | 
pinsentmasons.com | Emily Swithenbank |Gill Dennis
The case (53 pages / 621 KB) involved Tesco promoting its store loyalty card offers – Clubcard Prices (CCP)– using a logo considered similar to the main brand logo used by Lidl. Lidl initially issued proceedings in 2020 alleging trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement. Lidl has traditionally used a yellow circle with a blue background as its main logo, while Tesco’s CCP signs are also made up of a yellow circle on a blue background.
-
Mar 7, 2024 | 
pinsentmasons.com | Emily Swithenbank |Gill Dennis
Gill Dennis, an expert in brand protection and trade mark law at Pinsent Masons, said the judgment (30-page / 307KB PDF) is “likely to spur an increase in notice and takedown requests in respect of use of trade marks in the UK”. The Supreme Court considered that Amazon had infringed UK trade marks belonging to Lifestyle Equities, which owns and licences rights to UK and EU trade marks for clothing brands.
-
Jan 19, 2024 | 
pinsentmasons.com | David Thorneloe |Gill Dennis
Gill Dennis, an expert in intellectual property (IP) law at Pinsent Masons, said that in light of the decision, it is important for trade mark owners to proactively monitor the market for infringements of their marks. The judgment (37 pages/ 419 KB) concerns the scope of the statutory acquiescence defence to trade mark infringement – found in section 48 of the 1994 Trade Marks Act.
