Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Company (Grantham) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon Mr Justice Arnold,Mr Justice Arnold |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC13B00697 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 12 February 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 256 (Ch)
The Hon Mr Justice Arnold
Case No: HC13B00697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLL
Geoffrey Pritchard (instructed by Edwin Coe LLP) for the Claimant
Jessie Bowhill (instructed by Blandy & Blandy LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 27–30 January, 2 February 2015
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Contents
| Topic | Paragraphs |
| Introduction | 1 |
| The Trade Marks | 2 |
| The sign complained of | 3 |
| The witnesses | 4–11 |
| Supreme Petfoods witnesses | 4–8 |
| Henry Bell's witnesses | 9–11 |
| Factual background | 12–43 |
| Supreme Petfoods | 12–24 |
| Henry Bell and its predecessors | 25–42 |
| Third party use of the word SUPREME | 43 |
| Key legislative provisions | 44–47 |
| The relevance of TRIPS | 48–49 |
| The average consumer | 50–55 |
| The law | 50 |
| The average consumer in the present case | 51–55 |
| Validity of the Trade Marks | 56–76 |
| The law | 56–59 |
| Article 3(1)(b) of the Directive/Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation | 56 |
| Article 3(1)(c) of the Directive/Article 7(1)(c) of the Regulation | 57–58 |
| Acquired distinctive character | 59 |
| Assessment | 60–76 |
| Inherent distinctive character of the UK Word Mark | 60 |
| Inherent distinctive character of the UK and Community Stylised Word Marks | 61 |
| Inherent distinctive character of the UK and Community Ribbon Marks | 62 |
| Acquired distinctive character of the UK Word Mark | 63–75 |
| Acquired distinctive character of the UK and Community Stylised Word Marks | 76 |
| Contextual assessment of infringement claims | 77 |
| Date of assessment of infringement claims | 78–82 |
| The law | 78 |
| The relevant date in the present case | 79–82 |
| Infringement under Article 5(1)(a) of the Directive | 83–181 |
| The law | 83–164 |
| The six conditions | 83–84 |
| Condition (v) | 85 |
| Condition (vi) | 86–88 |
| The CJEU's case law from Hölterhoff to Bellure | 89–106 |
| The CJEU's case law with regard to exhaustion of trade marks | 135–143 |
| The CJEU's case law with regard to honest concurrent use | 144–148 |
| The CJEU's case law with regard to the territorial scope of injunctions | 149–150 |
| Academic commentary | 151 |
| The CJEU's case law with regard to keyword advertising | 152–162 |
| Conclusion | 163–164 |
| Assessment | 165–183 |
| Condition (v) | 165 |
| Condition (vi) | 166–183 |
| Infringement under Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive/ Article 9(1)(b) of the Regulation | 184–186 |
| The law | 184 |
| Assessment | 185–186 |
| Infringement under Article 5(2) of the Directive/Article 9(1)(c) of the Regulation | 187–192 |
| The law | 187 |
| Assessment | 188–192 |
| Reputation | 188 |
| Link | 190 |
| Detriment | 191 |
| Due cause | 192 |
| Defence under Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive/Article 12(b) of the regulation | 193–206 |
| The law | 194 |
| Assessment | 195–206 |
| Whether the defendant knew of the existence of the trade mark | 196 |
| Whether the defendant used the sign in reliance on competent legal advice | 197 |
| The nature of the use complained of | 198 |
| Whether the defendant knew that the trade | 199 |
| mark owner objected to the use of the sign Whether the defendant knew that there was a likelihood of confusion | 200 |
| Whether there has been actual confusion | 201 |
| Whether the trade mark has a reputation and if so whether the defendant knew that the reputation of the trade mark would be adversely affected | 202 |
| Whether the defendant's use of the sign interferes with the owner's ability to exploit the trade mark | 203 |
| Whether the defendant has a sufficient justification for using the sign complained of | 204 |
| The timing of the complaint from the trade mark owner | 205 |
| Conclusion | 206 |
| Passing off | 207 |
| Summary of conclusions | 208 |
Introduction
In this case the Claimant ("Supreme Petfoods") seeks in essence to monopolise use of the word SUPREME as a trade mark for animal food. The Defendant ("Henry Bell") denies that Supreme Petfoods is entitled to such a monopoly, and in the alternative denies that it has invaded any monopoly to which Supreme Petfoods may be entitled. It ought to be possible for such a dispute to be resolved without great legal difficulty or expense. Such is the current state of European trade mark law, however, that instead it has thrown up a considerable number of legal and factual issues, although the number was reduced as a result of sensible concessions made by both sides during closing submissions. As a result, I fear that the costs will have been out of all proportion to what is at stake.
The Trade Marks
Supreme Petfoods is the registered proprietor of the following registered trade marks ("the Trade Marks"):
i) United Kingdom Registered Trade Mark No. 2345353 consisting of the word SUPREME registered as of 8 October 2003 in respect of ( inter alia) "foodstuffs for animals; chews; meat and chocolate based animal treats; animal biscuits; animal litter; bird seed; animal bedding; … rabbit food" in Class 31 ("the UK Word Mark").
ii) United Kingdom Registered Trade Mark No. 2454708 consisting of the stylised word shown below registered as of 5 May 2007 in respect of ( inter alia) "animal foodstuffs; supplements for animal foodstuffs; edible treats for animals; animal bedding and litter" in Class 31 ("the UK Stylised Word Mark").
iii) United Kingdom Registered Trade Mark No. 2454707 consisting of the ribbon device shown below registered as of 5 May 2007 in respect of ( inter alia) "animal foodstuffs; supplements for animal foodstuffs; edible treats for animals; animal bedding and litter" in Class 31 ("the UK Ribbon Mark").
iv) Community Trade Mark No. 5874921 consisting of the stylised word shown above registered as of 4 May 2007 in respect of ( inter alia) "animal foodstuffs; supplements for animal foodstuffs; edible treats for animals; animal bedding and litter" in Class 31 ("the Community Stylised Word Mark").
v) Community Trade Mark No. 5875091 consisting of the ribbon device shown above registered as of 4 May 2007 in respect of ( inter alia) "animal foodstuffs; supplements for animal foodstuffs; edible treats for animals; animal bedding and litter" in Class 31 ("the Community Ribbon Mark").
The sign complained of
Supreme Petfoods complains about Henry Bell's use of the word SUPREME as shown in the following illustrative example of Henry Bell's packaging.
The witnesses
Supreme Petfoods' witnesses
Christopher Childs (Managing Director), Robert Baker (Technical Director), Claire Hamblion (Marketing Manager) and Thomas Kier (Chairman and owner) of Supreme Petfoods gave evidence about Supreme Petfoods' business, products and marketing and its relationship with Henry Bell and its predecessors.
Debbie Kibble and Penny Newby (both UK Telesales Support) of Supreme Petfoods gave evidence about alleged customer confusion, as did three of their customers: Georgina Lees of Kings Health Pet Centre, Lisa Till of Dolittles Pet Superstore and Debbie Walsh of Tavistock Pet Emporium. Clayton Hollins of CJ's Portland Pets, Aquatics & Reptiles and Piers Smart of Scampers Pet Shop were unable to attend the trial and so Supreme Petfoods served hearsay notices in respect of their witness statements. Given that their evidence was not tested in cross-examination and given the evidence of the other witnesses whose evidence was subject to cross-examination, I am unable to give these two witnesses' evidence any weight in so far as it goes further than the evidence of the live witnesses.
Dr Georgina Grell, the editor of Vetinerary Nurse, and Rachel Todd, Chief Executive Officer of the Rabbit Welfare Association and Fund, gave evidence about rabbit nutrition. They and Robert Chapman of the London Vet Show also gave evidence about how Supreme Petfoods was referred to.
Nicholas Phillips of Supreme Petfoods' solicitors gave evidence about certain internet searches and both he and Mark Hickey of Supreme Petfoods' trade mark attorneys gave evidence about Supreme Petfoods' knowledge of Henry Bell's Community Trade Mark No. 3435484 (MR JOHNSON'S SUPREME).
Counsel for Henry Bell made certain criticisms of the evidence of some of Supreme Petfoods' witnesses. The most serious criticisms concerned Ms Hamblion and Ms Newby. In both cases, however, the criticisms mainly related to the witness' witness statements rather than their oral evidence. In my view both witnesses gave their oral evidence fairly, although I agree that their witness statements left a certain amount to be desired.
Henry Bell's witnesses
Thomas Lee (owner and Director) and Alan Gittins (Key Account Manager) of Henry Bell gave evidence about Henry Bell's business, products and marketing and its relationship with Supreme Petfoods.
Alan Bamford of R E Bamford Ltd, Nigel Bone of Bones SW Ltd, James Brewer of Fal Valley Pets, John Burgess of Pet Market (Pets First), Maria Rees of Winners Animal and Petfood and Michelle Turner of The Pet Warehouse gave evidence about how Supreme Petfoods' products were referred to and as to the absence of confusion.
Lucy Wiggins of Henry Bell's solicitors gave evidence about certain internet searches.
Factual background
Supreme Petfoods
Supreme Petfoods started to trade in the mid 1980s selling canned dog food. Subsequently it became the agent for Purina dog food. In 1990 Supreme Petfoods launched a muesli rabbit food under the name Russel Rabbit, which became its flagship product. The packaging looked like this:
I should make it clear that in this image the top of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The London Taxi Corporation Ltd trading as the London Taxi Company v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd and Another
...C—409/12 Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH [EU:C:2014:130], [2014] ETMR 30 and Supreme Petfoods v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) [2015] EWHC 2456 (Ch), [2015] ETMR 20. It is not necessary for me to discuss those authorities, however, since they are all c......
-
Walton International Ltd v Verweij Fashion BV
...CJEU as a matter of interpretation. I reviewed the law with respect to condition (vi) in Supreme Pet Foods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), [2015] RPC 22 at [86]–[164], and concluded that, once the trade mark proprietor has shown that condition (v) is satisfied, the defendan......
-
W3 Ltd v Easygroup Ltd
...date. Neither side took issue with these conclusions in the present case. 215 In Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch), [2015] RPC 22 I held at [78] that the relevant date did not differ depending on whether the claim was made under Article 5(1)(a) of th......
-
Luen Fat Metal and Plastic Manufactory Ltd v Jacobs & Turner Ltd trading as Trespass
...in issue. The Defendant also drew my attention to a number of other decisions by way of example (eg “ TREAT”, “ FRUIT LOOPS” and Supreme Petfoods v Henry Bell [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch)) but these are merely illustrations of the above principles being applied to various sets of facts. Analysis 2......
-
Brexit - What Are The Implications For Intellectual Property?
...as exemplified by the judgments of Arnold J in Nestlé v Cadbury [2016] EWHC 50 (Ch) and Supreme Petfoods v Henry Bell & Co [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch). There is therefore further scope for the UK national system to steer a different course on some issues, once it is no longer subject to the Th......
-
Territorial overlaps in trademark law: the evolving European model.
...as to the origin of the advertised goods or services."). (190) See Supreme Petfoods Ltd. v. Henry Bell & Co. (Grantham) Ltd. [2015] EWHC (Ch) 256 [158], [163]-[64] ("To the extent that the Court of Appeal's dicta went beyond keyword advertising, they were obiter.... [I]t is unclear whic......