Glaxo Plc v Glaxo-Wellcome Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtChancery Division
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
19 cases
  • Kailash Center for Personal Development Inc. v Yoga Magik Pty Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • British Telecommunications Plc v One in A Million Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 July 1998
    ...which the law of passing-off depends. He then considered Direct Line Group Ltd v Direct Line Estate Agency (1997) FSR 374 and Glaxo Plc v Glaxowellcome Ltd (1996) FSR 388. Those were cases where interlocutory relief was granted which prevented use of company names that had been registered......
  • Aveda Corporation v Dabur India Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 18 March 2013
    ...conclude that this was an undertaking which combined the two previously separate undertakings (see Glaxo Group Ltd v Glaxowellcome Ltd [1996] FSR 388). The essence of the Court of Justice's reasoning in Medion v Thomson is that an average consumer of leisure electronic products confronted ......
  • Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha And Others v Yakudo Group Holdings Ltd And Another
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • 26 February 2004
    ...& Co. AG v Suhner Ltd [1967] RPC 336; Fletcher Challenge Ltd v Fletcher Challenger Pty Ltd [1982] FSR 1; Glaxo Plc v Glaxo-Wellcome Ltd [1996] FSR 388; Direct Line Group Ltd v Direct Line Estate Agency Ltd [1997] FSR 374. In British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] FSR 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Cyberbusters versus Cybersquatters: Round II in the ZADNA Ring
    • South Africa
    • South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...registered a company‘Glaxowellcome Ltd’ in anticipation of the merger of Glaxo and Wellcome. The Court in Glaxo plc vGlaxowellcome Ltd [1996] FSR 388 ordered the defendant to change the company’s name to enable theplaintiff to register the merged company under that name. Another example of ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT