For the half-year to 31 December 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Jani Ihalainen, Nikos Prentoulis and Mark Schweizer.

Birgit Clark is on Sabbatical till the end of the year

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

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':