Infringement in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • C.B.S. Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 12 May 1988

    My Lords, I accept that a defendant who procures a breach of copyright is liable jointly and severally with the infringer for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement. The defendant is a joint infringer; he intends and procures and shares a common design that infringement shall take place. A defendant may procure an infringement by inducement, incitement or persuasion.

  • Interflora Inc. (a company incorporated under the laws of Michigan, United States) and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc
    • Court of Appeal
    • 05 Nov 2014

    To the contrary, if, having regard to the perceptions and expectations of the average consumer, the court concludes that a significant proportion of the relevant public is likely to be confused such as to warrant the intervention of the court then we believe it may properly find infringement.

  • Mölnlycke A.B. v Procter & Gamble Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 27 Jun 1991

    Conversely the English court could not entertain a claim for the infringement of a German patent. English patent law as embodied in the Patents Act 1977 is founded on international convention, not just European Community convention, but, subject to certain special provisions of the Act, its application by the English court is a matter of English law.

  • Thomson Holidays Ltd v Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 17 Dic 2002

    In my view that task should be carried out so as to limit the specification so that it reflects the circumstances of the particular trade and the way that the public would perceive the use. If the test of infringement is to be applied by the court having adopted the attitude of such a person, then I believe it appropriate that the court should do the same when deciding what is the fair way to describe the use that a proprietor has made of his mark.

  • Compass Publishing BV v Compass Logistics Ltd
    • Chancery Division
    • 24 Mar 2004

    It is frequently said by trade mark lawyers that when the proprietor's mark and the defendant's sign have been used in the market place but no confusion has been caused, then there cannot exist a likelihood of confusion under Article 9.1(b) or the equivalent provision in the Trade Marks Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act"), that is to say s. 10(2). In the latter it must consider notional use on a scale where direct competition between the proprietor and the alleged infringer could take place.

  • Hotel Cipriani SRL and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others
    • Chancery Division
    • 02 Mar 2010

    The applicant may believe that he has a superior right to registration and use of the mark. For example, it is not uncommon for prospective claimants who intend to sue a prospective defendant for passing off first to file an application for registration to strengthen their position. Even if the applicant does not believe that he has a superior right to registration and use of the mark, he may still believe that he is entitled to registration.

  • Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc (No.2)
    • House of Lords
    • 20 Oct 2005

    If I may summarise the effect of these two well-known statements, the matter relied upon as prior art must disclose subject-matter which, if performed, would necessarily result in an infringement of the patent. That may be because the prior art discloses the same invention. In that case there will be no question that performance of the earlier invention would infringe and usually it will be apparent to someone who is aware of both the prior art and the patent that it will do so.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results