Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks & Spencer Plc (Rev 1)

Interflora Inc & Anor v Marks & Spencer Plc (Rev 1)

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence from the selected consumer witnesses was not of real value, was based on a skewed and partisan selection, and relied heavily on answers to leading questions rather than spontaneous reactions. The judge below applied too lax a test and imposed an unfair burden on Marks & Spencer to disprove the validity of the evidence. The appeal was allowed and permission to adduce the evidence was refused.

Parties
Respondent (claimant): Interflora Inc; Respondent (claimant): Interflora British Unit; Appellant (defendant): Marks & Spencer PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Case Management Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Evidence Admissibility, Consumer Confusion, Case Management, Survey Evidence
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trade Mark Infringement Evidence Admissibility 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interflora Inc

Respondent (claimant)

Interflora British Unit

Respondent (claimant)

Marks & Spencer PLC

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence from selected consumer witnesses regarding confusion should be admitted in trade mark infringement proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the evidence is of real value and justifies the cost
  3. 3 Whether the selection of witnesses was representative and complied with evidentiary standards

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence from the selected consumer witnesses was not of real value, was based on a skewed and partisan selection, and relied heavily on answers to leading questions rather than spontaneous reactions. The judge below applied too lax a test and imposed an unfair burden on Marks & Spencer to disprove the validity of the evidence. The appeal was allowed and permission to adduce the evidence was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce evidence from selected consumer witnesses refused