Lumos Skincare Ltd.v Sweet Squared Ltd & Ors

Lumos Skincare Ltd.v Sweet Squared Ltd & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapplied the law by limiting the relevant class of customers to trade purchasers and failing to consider end-users, who were likely to be misled by the Defendants' use of the LUMOS mark in overlapping outlets. The evidence, including an email from a trade customer, supported the inference that a significant number of the Claimant's actual and potential customers would likely be deceived into believing the Defendants' products were associated with the Claimant. Thus, the second element of passing off—misrepresentation—was established, and the appeal was allowed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lumos Skincare Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Sweet Squared Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Famous Names LLC; Defendant/respondent: Sweet Squared (UK) LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (passing Off) / Appeal From Patents County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Goodwill, Misrepresentation, Market Overlap, Likelihood of Confusion
Intellectual Property Tort Passing Off Goodwill Misrepresentation Market Overlap Likelihood of Confusion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lumos Skincare Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Sweet Squared Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Famous Names LLC

Defendant/respondent

Sweet Squared (UK) LLP

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (passing Off) / Appeal From Patents County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants' use of the LUMOS mark constituted a misrepresentation likely to deceive or confuse a substantial number of the Claimant's actual or potential customers, amounting to passing off.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapplied the law by limiting the relevant class of customers to trade purchasers and failing to consider end-users, who were likely to be misled by the Defendants' use of the LUMOS mark in overlapping outlets. The evidence, including an email from a trade customer, supported the inference that a significant number of the Claimant's actual and potential customers would likely be deceived into believing the Defendants' products were associated with the Claimant. Thus, the second element of passing off—misrepresentation—was established, and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Injunction granted restraining the Defendants from passing off their nail care products as those of the Claimant.