UK: IP Snapshot: May/June 2008


Digipos Store Solutions group Limited v Digi International Inc (High Court)

The High Court upheld the opposition of the Hearing Officer to the registration of the appellant's marks on the grounds of a likelihood of confusion between these and the earlier registered marks of the respondent, all containing the term DIGI. The Judge clearly disagreed with the approach of the Hearing Officer towards the descriptive nature of the DIGI prefix, and made it clear that he would have reached a different result were he entitled to consider the case afresh. However, he stated he was bound to accept the Hearing Officer's decision in the absence of a "distinct and material error of principle" or the Hearing Officer being "clearly wrong".

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Eurohypo AG v OHIM (ECJ)

The ECJ confirmed that the mark EUROHYPO lacked distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of the CTM regulation, as it would be perceived as providing information about the type of services it designated (financial). However, the CFI's reasoning had been incorrect in assessing distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) solely by reference to descriptive character under Article 7(1)(c).

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Rousselon Freres et Cie v Horwood Homewares Limited (High Court)

This case concerned the use of the SABATIER trade mark in juxtaposition with JUDGE or STELLAR. The Court found that the mark SABATIER did retain an independent distinctive role in the marks JUDGE SABATIER and STELLAR SABATIER. Therefore and given that the goods were identical, it was not possible to maintain that there is no likelihood of confusion between the SABATIER mark and the JUDGE SABATIER and STELLAR SABATIER marks. In reaching this conclusion, it was not necessary for the earlier mark to have a dominant role in the composite mark; average distinctiveness was sufficient.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (ECJ)

A Swiss bakery firm, Cornu, applied to register the word FERRO as a Community trade mark for salted biscuits in Class 30. This was opposed by Ferrero, the confectionery manufacturer, on the basis of a risk of confusion. The ECJ found that although there was a low degree of similarity between the products, ie. between chocolate-covered confectionery and salted biscuits, there was a reasonable degree of similarity between the signs, and the reputation of the FERRERO mark in Germany was so great that there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks among German consumers.

Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA v OHIM (CFI)

The CFI upheld the appeal of OHIM against one of its Board of Appeal decisions, finding that there was a similarity between a figurative mark containing the word "CITI", applied for in relation to services in class 36, and the earlier word mark CITIBANK, applied for, among other CITI based marks, in relation to 'financial affairs' and 'real estate services'. The CFI found that the earlier CITIBANK mark had a reputation, and that there was a risk of unfair advantage being taken in relation to the mark.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Adidas AG and another v Marca Mode CV and others (ECJ)

The ECJ provided a judgment relating to Adidas' famous three-stripes logo, and came down firmly on the side of the sportswear manufacturer. The dispute saw Adidas sue fashion outlet H &M for trade mark infringement in response to the use of similar stripes by H&M on its clothing. The case had reached the Dutch Supreme Court who turned to the ECJ for guidance. The ECJ ruled on whether the general interest in the availability of given signs in the market should have any bearing on the protection provided by a trade mark. The ECJ ruled that the requirement of availability should not play a part in assessing confusion.

For our full Law-Now on this decision, click here.


Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina SpA (ECJ)

The ECJ has given a narrow construction to Article 4(1) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC), closely following the opinion of the Advocate General. In particular, the term "distribution" as used in the Directive requires a transfer of property and is not satisfied by making goods temporarily available for use by the public, or by exhibiting the goods to them.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Fisher v Brooker and another (Court of Appeal)

The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's ruling of December 2006 which granted the former organist of the band Procol Harum a 40% share in the musical copyright in the band's 1967 hit single "A Whiter Shade of Pale" 38 years after the record was first released.

For our full Law-Now on this decision, click here.


Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited (High Court)

The High Court refused to grant an injunction to prevent video footage of Max Mosley, the head of Formula 1 motor-racing, being shown on the News of the World website. Despite dismissing the newspaper's public-interest arguments under Article 10 ECHR, the court considered material was so readily available on a range of other websites and therefore that granting an injunction would make very little practical difference and would be a futile gesture. The decision is perhaps not surprising but is a useful reminder that it is difficult to obtain an injunction to prevent publication of material which is widely available in the public domain.

For our full Law-Now on this decision, click here

David Murray (by his litigation friends Neil Murray and Joanne Murray) v Big Pictures Limited (Court of Appeal)

The Court of Appeal has reinstated the case brought on behalf of JK Rowling's infant son, David Murray, following the covert taking and subsequent publication of a photograph of David and his family in the street. In assessing the Article 8 right of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the court held that a child of famous parents, who had not sought publicity for their children, could expect the same degree of protection as a child of ordinary parents. The decision is likely to make photographers/publishers more cautious when taking pictures of children regardless of the nature of the activity being photographed.

For the full text of the decision, click here.


Actavis UK Limited v Merck & Co Inc (Court of Appeal)

The Court of Appeal has recently handed down a significant judgment in the case of Actavis v Merck, ruling that a Swiss form claim for the use of a pharmaceutical in the manufacture of a medicament could be allowed even where the novelty lay only in a new dosing regime. Emphasising the importance of taking an approach consistent with that of the EPO, the Court rejected arguments that it was bound not to allow such a claim on the basis of the Court of Appeal judgment in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Baker Norton. The case is likely to be of great interest to the pharmaceutical industry, as it provides a more consistent approach to patentability of Swiss claims across the European Patent Convention countries, and will improve the prospects of pharmaceutical companies seeking to obtain patent protection in the UK for new applications of known substances.

For our full Law-Now on this decision, click here.

T 1319/04 - 3.3.02 Dosage regimen/KOS LIFE SCIENCES, INC. (EPO Board of Appeal)

The European Patent Office Board of Appeal has referred two questions concerning the interpretation of the "second medical use" provisions of the EPC 2000 as introduced in December last year. Specifically, whether it was possible to patent a medicament which is already known for treatment of the same illness where the only novel aspect is the new method of treatment / dosing.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Rolawn Limited and Rolawn (Turf Growers) Ltd v Turfmech Ltd (High Court)

The High Court held that the claimants' unregistered and registered design rights were not infringed by the defendant in an action involving wide-area mowers. The High Court held that although unregistered design rights subsisted in various physical aspects of the claimants' mower, and in their configuration, there were no design rights in anything more general, and in particular not in relation to the methods or principles of construction. There had, the Court found, been no copying of any material aspects of the mower and no infringement. Likewise there was no breach of any registered design right, as the design of the mower created a different overall impression. The Defendant failed in its challenge to validity, with the High Court finding the overall design of the claimants had distinctive character.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 19/06/2008.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions