Lyle & Scott Ltd v Primark Stores Ltd [2007] EWHC 1549 (Ch) (17 May 2007)

Lyle & Scott Ltd v Primark Stores Ltd [2007] EWHC 1549 (Ch) (17 May 2007)

Both parties demonstrated serious questions to be tried under Article 9.1(a), (b), and (c), but the balance of convenience, particularly the established status quo of Primark's ongoing sales and the theoretical nature of Lyle & Scott's alleged irreparable harm, weighed against granting an interim injunction. The court excluded additional survey/confusion evidence as irrelevant to the balance of convenience at this stage.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1549 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lyle & Scott Ltd.; Defendant: Primark Stores Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Trademark Infringement Proceedings / Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Trademark Infringement, Balance of Convenience, Community Trade Mark Regulation, Likelihood of Confusion
Intellectual Property Trademark Law Interim Injunctions Trademark Infringement Balance of Convenience Community Trade Mark Regulation 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lyle & Scott Ltd.

Claimant

Primark Stores Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Trademark Infringement Proceedings / Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain alleged trademark infringement by the defendant's use of an eagle device on clothing
  2. 2 Whether the marks used by the defendant are identical or similar to the claimant's registered trademarks under Article 9.1(a), (b), and (c) of Council Regulation 40/94
  3. 3 Admissibility and relevance of survey/confusion evidence at the interlocutory stage

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties demonstrated serious questions to be tried under Article 9.1(a), (b), and (c), but the balance of convenience, particularly the established status quo of Primark's ongoing sales and the theoretical nature of Lyle & Scott's alleged irreparable harm, weighed against granting an interim injunction. The court excluded additional survey/confusion evidence as irrelevant to the balance of convenience at this stage.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • Additional survey/confusion evidence excluded from consideration at this stage