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
Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Company Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 933 (Ch) (23 April 2026)
The High Court struck out contempt proceedings over emails to the UKIPO about trade mark registration, holding they were consistent with practice and not criminal contempt.
The IPEC held that Jaybank’s EASIHIRE use would otherwise infringe easyGroup’s trade mark, but easyGroup failed to prove qualifying use and the claim was dismissed.
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
Babek International Ltd v Iceland Foods Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1341 (23 October 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed Iceland’s challenge to Babek’s trade mark, holding the mark was a single sign and that the pictorial and written elements were clear and consistent.
SKE withdrew the Variation application and did not achieve what it sought; therefore, it is the unsuccessful party and should pay BB's costs. Only reasonable and proportionate costs are recoverable, assessed at ÂŁ55,000.
Source excerpt
Stitch Editing Ltd v TikTok Information Technologies UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 1167 (Ch) (17 May 2023)
The High Court allowed Stitch Editing Limited’s trade mark appeal against refusal of STITCH, finding flaws in the Hearing Officer’s service-by-service analysis and remitting the case.
Wineapp Ltd v Johnson [2022] EWHC 620 (Ch) (21 March 2022)
Appeal against refusal of a trade mark opposition failed. The High Court upheld the hearing officer’s finding that there was no passing off misrepresentation.
Fox Group International Ltd v Teleta Pharma Ltd [2021] EWHC 1714 (IPEC) (23 June 2021)
The court held that Fox applied for the REVOLAX trade mark in bad faith and that its pre-action threats against Teleta were actionable under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
The court struck out most of the defence and counterclaim in a passing off dispute over the LOVE/LUV INJECTION name, and granted partial summary judgment on trade mark cancellation.
The High Court dismissed Jaguar Land Rover’s appeal against a trade mark opposition decision, holding that Twisted had goodwill in “LR Motors” and that registration of “LR” would likely mislead.
Explore more
