Euromarket Designs Incorporated v Peters & Anor [2000] EWHC 453 (Ch) (25 July 2000)

Euromarket Designs Incorporated v Peters & Anor [2000] EWHC 453 (Ch) (25 July 2000)

There are realistic prospects of the defence succeeding because the alleged infringing acts were not sufficiently linked to trade in the UK, the 'own name' defence is realistically arguable for companies acting honestly, and the claimant's registration is vulnerable to a non-use attack due to lack of genuine use in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] EWHC 453 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Crate & Barrel (Claimant); Defendant: Ms Peters (First Defendant); Defendant: Crate & Barrel (Second Defendant, Irish company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Infringement, Summary Judgment, Non Use Revocation, Own Name Defence
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trade Marks Infringement Summary Judgment Non Use Revocation Own Name Defence

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crate & Barrel (Claimant)

Claimant

Ms Peters (First Defendant)

Defendant

Crate & Barrel (Second Defendant, Irish company)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Under CPR Part 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' use of 'Crate & Barrel' in a UK magazine advertisement and on a website constitutes trade mark infringement in the UK under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
  2. 2 Whether the 'own name' defence under s.11(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and Art.6(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC applies to companies as well as individuals.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's UK trade mark registration is vulnerable to revocation for non-use under s.46(1) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

There are realistic prospects of the defence succeeding because the alleged infringing acts were not sufficiently linked to trade in the UK, the 'own name' defence is realistically arguable for companies acting honestly, and the claimant's registration is vulnerable to a non-use attack due to lack of genuine use in the UK. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment refused.
  • Claimant to pay defendants' costs, summarily assessed at £45,000.