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
The Court of Appeal held that the judge applied the wrong section 12(3) threshold for an interim injunction restraining alleged unjustified threats and set the injunction aside.
Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 532 (08 May 2026)
The Court of Appeal allowed BBL’s appeal and set aside an interim injunction restraining threats of trade mark infringement proceedings, holding section 12(3) required the usual likelihood threshold.
Cabo Concepts Ltd & Anor v MGA Entertainment (UK) Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 768 (Ch) (31 March 2026)
The High Court refused MGA’s bid to vary an adjournment costs order after later disclosure failures by Cabo came to light. Cabo’s solicitor had been careless, but not dishonest.
Luxe World Ltd v Touch of Vogue Ltd & Anor [2026] EWHC 148 (IPEC) (30 January 2026)
The IPEC held that an account of profits is not available for an actionable threats claim under section 26C of the Registered Designs Act 1949.
Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) (21 May 2025)
The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining further trade mark threats against SKE’s distributors and retailers, subject to the TMA exceptions and permitted communications.
The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining further trade mark threats against SKE’s distributors and retailers, subject to statutory exceptions.
NOCO's communications to Amazon, which asserted patent infringement and requested removal of Carku's products, amounted to threats of infringement proceedings under section 70 of the Patents Act 1977. The reasonable recipient in Amazon's position would understand that failure to comply could result in litigation. Such threats are actionable under the statutory scheme, and the judge was correct to so hold.
Source excerpt
Given the withdrawal of all EU Trade Mark infringement claims and the concession that Article 132(1) does not apply, a full stay of all claims is no longer justified. The balance of justice requires only a limited stay of the invalidity claim regarding the UK Chevron Mark pending final resolution of the validity of the EU Chevron Mark. All other claims should proceed.
Source excerpt
The court retains jurisdiction as an EU trade mark court for proceedings instituted before IP completion day, including actions for unjustified threats, under both the Withdrawal Agreement and UK transitional provisions. Article 132(1) of the Trade Mark Regulation is engaged for such actions, requiring a stay, and in any event, a stay would be granted on case management grounds.
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
Explore more
