Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks & Spencer Plc (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 319 (05 April 2013)

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks & Spencer Plc (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 319 (05 April 2013)

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence from the 13 selected witnesses was not of real value, was based on a flawed and partisan selection process, and was tainted by leading questions that did not reflect spontaneous consumer reactions. The judge at first instance applied too lax a test and failed to ensure compliance with procedural standards. The evidence should not be admitted unless it is shown to be of real value and its value justifies the cost. The appeal was allowed and permission to adduce the evidence was refused.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 319
Parties
First Respondent (claimant): Interflora Inc; Second Respondent (claimant): Interflora British Unit; Appellant (defendant): Marks & Spencer PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property, Community Trademark Court) / Appeal Against Case Management Decision Permitting Evidence of Consumer Confusion
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Admissibility of Evidence, Consumer Confusion, Case Management, Survey Evidence
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Infringement Admissibility of Evidence Consumer Confusion Case Management Survey Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interflora Inc

First Respondent (claimant)

Interflora British Unit

Second Respondent (claimant)

Marks & Spencer PLC

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (chancery Division, Intellectual Property, Community Trademark Court) / Appeal Against Case Management Decision Permitting Evidence of Consumer Confusion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence from selected consumers alleging confusion should be admitted in a trade mark infringement case
  2. 2 Whether the evidence is of 'real value' and justifies the cost of admission
  3. 3 Whether the selection of witnesses was representative and complied with procedural standards

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence from the 13 selected witnesses was not of real value, was based on a flawed and partisan selection process, and was tainted by leading questions that did not reflect spontaneous consumer reactions. The judge at first instance applied too lax a test and failed to ensure compliance with procedural standards. The evidence should not be admitted unless it is shown to be of real value and its value justifies the cost. The appeal was allowed and permission to adduce the evidence was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce the proposed consumer confusion evidence refused