Kingspan Group Plc & another v Rockwool Ltd [2011] EWHC 250 (Ch), 21 February 2011

The High Court found that Rockwool had infringed the trade marks of a competitor, Kingspan, by using its marks in a manner which did not comply with the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive 2006/114/EC. Some of the tests comparing the two companies’ products were misleading and failed objectively to compare relevant features of the products, causing trade mark infringement. The Court rejected a claim for malicious falsehood as malice could not be proved.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Hasbro Inc. and others v 123 Nahrmittel GmbH and another [2011] EWHC 199 (Ch), 11 February 2011

The High Court has upheld the validity of Hasbro’s registrations for the mark PLAY-DOH and held that it was infringed by the use of the sign THE EDIBLE PLAY DOUGH in respect of a different brand of modelling clay. The sign had been ‘woven’ into the fabric of the defendant’s brand despite appearing on a different part of the packaging from the name of the product (YUMMY DOUGH).

For the full text of the decision, click here.

PATENTS

Datacard Corporation v Eagle Technologies Ltd [2011] EWHC 244 (Pat), 14 February 2011

In a double-patent, double-trade mark case before the High Court, Mr Justice Arnold has handed down a judgment revoking both patents for lack of inventive step and held that, although the two trade marks had been infringed prior to the service of proceedings, the defendant’s subsequent amendments to its packaging and website were sufficient to stop the acts complained of being an infringement.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Delta Airways Inc [2011] EWCA Civ 162, 23 February 2011

The Court of Appeal has reversed a High Court decision granting summary judgment in favour of Delta. The High Court held that Delta did not infringe Virgin’s patent since the installation of the seats in the aircraft took place outside the UK. However the Court of Appeal held that the claim was not limited to the actual installation of seats into an aircraft but covered a system capable of being installed into an aircraft.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Premium Aircraft Interiors UK Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 163, 23 February 2011

The Court of Appeal has refused to discharge a previous order it made for an inquiry into damages following its ruling that the patent was valid and infringed despite a subsequent amendment of the patent following a determination by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO.

For the full text of the decision, click here.

Media CAT Ltd v Adams and others [2011] EWPCC 6, 8 February 2011

The Patents County Court has refused permission to discontinue 27 claims which had been brought before the PCC by Media Cat Limited as part of a wider enforcement campaign in which many individuals had been identified as having infringed copyright in pornographic films using peer-to-peer file sharing software. The Court did so on the basis that discontinuance of the claims would be an abuse of process as it would be a breach of s102 CDPA for the case to be discontinued without the copyright owners’ permission, that the copyright owners would gain a collateral advantage from the cases being discontinued and that taking the claimants’ actions as a whole, discontinuance of the claims would be an abuse as it would provide the copyright owners with an unwarranted advantage as it would avoid judicial scrutiny of the underlying claims.

For the full text of the decision, click here.