Lyle & Scott Ltd v Primark Stores Ltd

Lyle & Scott Ltd v Primark Stores Ltd

Both parties have arguable cases under Article 9.1(a), (b), and (c). The balance of convenience, particularly the status quo and the absence of commanding evidence of irreparable harm, favours refusing the injunction at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: Lyle & Scott Ltd.; Defendant: Primark Stores Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
injunction refused
Legal Topics
Trademark Infringement, Interlocutory Injunction, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Trademark Infringement Interlocutory Injunction Balance of Convenience

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lyle & Scott Ltd.

Claimant

Primark Stores Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the marks used by Primark are identical or confusingly similar to Lyle & Scott's registered trademarks under Council Regulation 40/94 Article 9.1(a), (b), and (c)
  2. 2 Whether evidence of confusion is admissible at this stage
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an interlocutory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties have arguable cases under Article 9.1(a), (b), and (c). The balance of convenience, particularly the status quo and the absence of commanding evidence of irreparable harm, favours refusing the injunction at this stage.

Court Disposition

injunction refused

Orders

  • No interlocutory injunction granted.