Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer Plc

Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer Plc

The judge was wrong to allow the evidence from the 13 witnesses as it was not sufficiently probative or relevant. The refusal to order M&S to produce a customer list was justified due to privacy concerns, proportionality, and lateness of the application.

Parties
Respondent: Interflora Inc; Appellant: Marks & Spencer PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to cross-appeal refused
Legal Topics
Trademark Infringement, Evidentiary Rules, Disclosure, Case Management
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Trademark Infringement Evidentiary Rules Disclosure Case Management

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interflora Inc

Respondent

Marks & Spencer PLC

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in allowing Interflora to call evidence from 13 witnesses regarding real world confusion
  2. 2 Whether Interflora should be permitted to cross-appeal the refusal to order M&S to produce a list of customers for further witness identification

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was wrong to allow the evidence from the 13 witnesses as it was not sufficiently probative or relevant. The refusal to order M&S to produce a customer list was justified due to privacy concerns, proportionality, and lateness of the application.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to cross-appeal refused

Orders

  • The appeal by Marks & Spencer PLC is allowed.
  • Permission for Interflora Inc to cross-appeal is refused.