For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Thursday, 23 March 2006

O2 v HUTCHISON


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.

5 comments:

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?

Cheers

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

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