The team is joined by GuestKats Mirko Brüß, Rosie Burbidge, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy
InternKats: Rose Hughes, Ieva Giedrimaite, and Cecilia Sbrolli
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), and Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent).

Thursday, 23 March 2006


Mr Justice Lewison has delivered a monster-sized judgment in the O2 v Hutchison comparative advertising case. The conclusion at the end of his 223 paragraph judgment [is this a new record for a trade mark case?] is:

  1. O2's bubble marks are valid. They don't lack distinctiveness;
  2. While there was prima-facie s.10(2) (confusion-based infringement), Hutchison had a defence under the Comparative Advertising Directive;
  3. There was no s.10(3) (dilution-based) infringement, and even if there had been, Hutchison would have been covered by a Comparative Advertising Directive defence.

The IPKat will bring you more when he's had time to read the case. A skim-through shows that all our old favourites are there, including Arsenal v Reed, Johnstone and Philips v Remington.


Peter Groves said...

Not a record: Healing Herbs v Bach Flower Remedies CH 1997-H-NO.1231 was 305 paragraphs.

Jeremy said...

Healing Herbs v Bach Flower Remedies may have more paragraphs, but it's only 23,902 words. O2 v Hutchison is 32,950. HOWEVER ... the longest is Mr Justice Laddie's epic judgment in Glaxo and others v Dowelhurst and others, which weighs in at a massive 39,501 words.

The IP Dog said...

What about Occular Science? That was a big-un!

The IP Dog said...

Oops - see you you were only talking about TM cases!!!
Duh . . .

Michael said...

Do you have any news for this case?


Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':