Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Trade mark infringement and passing off claims by easyGroup over Easyfeet signs failed; the court found no likely confusion, link, detriment or unfair advantage.
The High Court held that Trek breached a trade mark co-existence agreement by selling TREK cycling shoes and insoles, and that Clarks also breached related restrictions.
The trade mark, as registered, satisfied the requirements of clarity and precision under s.1(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The visual representation and written description, considered together, were not inconsistent or ambiguous. The absence of pantone numbers or precise hues did not result in a multitude of forms or lack of clarity. The reasonable reader would understand the mark as a figurative mark with the features shown. The Sieckmann criteria were met and the trade mark was validly registered.
Source excerpt
The High Court dismissed easyGroup’s trade mark claims over Premier Inn’s “Rest Easy” branding, finding no confusion, no unfair advantage, and no invalidity.
Nissin Foods Holdings Co Ltd v MomoIP LLC [2025] EWHC 561 (Ch) (12 March 2025)
The High Court allowed Nissin’s appeal, holding that MomoIP had not shown genuine UK use of the MOMOFUKU mark for restaurant services in the relevant period.
SIL does not need to apply to amend its pleadings to narrow the specifications of goods and services in response to invalidity and non-use attacks; the court can determine the appropriate specification based on evidence and submissions. However, Google is permitted to amend its pleadings at this late stage to introduce deceptiveness as a ground of invalidity and to expand its non-use claim, as the balance of prejudice and case management considerations favour allowing the amendments.
Source excerpt
The court must stay all claims relating to the EU Chevron Mark under art.132(1) of the Trade Mark Regulation, as continued in force by art.67(1)(b) of the Withdrawal Agreement, because the proceedings were instituted before IP completion day and there are no special grounds to continue. The direct effect of the Withdrawal Agreement prevails over inconsistent UK domestic regulations. For case management reasons, all related claims, including those concerning the UK Chevron Mark, the Symfonie Marks, and passing off, are also stayed to avoid wasted costs and inconsistent outcomes.
Source excerpt
The court held that the defendants infringed trade mark rights and passed off by using CORMETON outside a 2003 licence, but dismissed the copyright claim and invalidity counterclaims.
The Court of Appeal held Glaxo’s purple inhaler EU trade mark invalid because the mark was not clear, precise, and uniform enough under Article 4 EUTMR.
The High Court adjourned a patent defendant’s bid to add competition-law defences, saying the issues should be revisited after the technical trial.
Explore more
