GOOD NEWS FOR DEFENDANTS - YOU CAN STILL ARGUE YOUR DEFENCE

The LexisNexis All England Direct subscription-only service reported yesterday on Beiersdorf AG and another v Ramlort and another, an application for summary judgment heard before the Chancery Division’s Vice-Chancellor, Sir Andrew Morritt. Beiersdorf, who made and sold NIVEA products, sued for trade mark infringement and applied for summary judgment on the ground that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The defendants resisted the application, saying that Beiersdor’s trade mark rights had been exhausted since the goods they sold had been first marketed in the European Economic Area with that company’s consent. Beiersdorf denied they had consented to the marketing of those goods and claimed that the documents the defendants relied on as proving Beiersdorf’s consent were forgeries.

The court rejected Beiersdorf’s application and ordered that their claim should go to a full trial. When an application for summary judgment is made, the court could not be expected to conduct a mini trial and the defendants were entitled to contest, by means of cross-examination, the question whether the documents of authorisation were forged.
The IPKat agrees. The defendants’ case may indeed be unmeritorious and may ultimately fail. Even so, the likelihood that Beiersdorf would ultimately succeed should not be a ground upon which a defendant is deprived of the right of putting its case.

The Nivea teddy here
Nivea products here and here that Beiersdorf doesn’t control, plus another Nivea product here that anyone can control.
Play an oily Nivea game here

GOOD NEWS FOR DEFENDANTS - YOU CAN STILL ARGUE YOUR DEFENCE GOOD NEWS FOR DEFENDANTS  -  YOU CAN STILL ARGUE YOUR DEFENCE Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, January 16, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.