Damages inquiries are reasonably rare and often complex. This dispute between rivals in the bodycon and bandage garments sector serves as a reminder of how the court applies damages principles to an infringement case.
In this dispute between rival brewing companies, the General Court found that there is no express provision in the withdrawal agreement that use in the United Kingdom before the end of the transition period is no longer to be regarded as use in the European Union.
This dispute between competitors in the toilet cleaner market highlights the criteria to take into account in assessing whether a trademark application has been filed in bad faith.
In a landmark decision, the court elaborated comprehensively on the basis for calculating punitive damages and upheld Xiaomi’s claim for damages in full.
As the goods were ordinary consumer products commonly purchased in supermarkets or establishments where goods are arranged on shelves, consumers would be guided by the visual impact of the mark they were looking for.
This dispute between rival dining establishments operating under the names ‘Luke’s Oyster Bar & Chop House’ and ‘Luke’s Lobster’ highlights that initial interest confusion is insufficient for both passing off and trademark infringement.
There was no evidence to suggest that the relevant public would buy the goods at issue in conditions such that the phonetic similarity between the marks would carry more weight than the visual or conceptual similarity in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
