No reverse for Jensen. Healey Sports Cars Switzerland Ltd v Jensen Cars Ltd  EWHC 24 (Pat) is a Patents Court, England and Wales, decision of Katfriend Henry Carr QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) on 24 January 2014. It's not a very big case and isn't posted on BAILII (you can access it here or download it here) -- but even a small case can have some significant content.
Healey Sports and Jensen Cars both claimed to own the United Kingdom trade mark registration for the word JENSEN in relation to motor vehicles, parts, accessories etc. In proceedings before the Trade Mark Registry, Hearing Officer and Katfriend Allan James had to address two separate disputes.
Now here's the first really interesting bit of this case ...
... and here's the next interesting bit, even though it's obiter
Henry Carr QC let off a bit of steam on a matter that, this Kat suspects, may have been troubling him for some little time. He said, at :
“Some parties to Registry proceedings may consider that it is simpler, more efficient or more cost effective to have evidence of fact given by their legal representatives. This appears to have been adopted in the present case. I make no criticism of the solicitors who have carried out their clients’ instructions in the present case. However, this view is plainly misconceived. It is likely to lead, as in the present case, to such evidence being given little weight, on the basis that the person giving it has no knowledge of the relevant facts. There is no reason that such evidence should carry more weight in the Registry than in Court proceedings”.Quite right, says Merpel. Clients shouldn't expect their legal representatives to do all that hard work to get a case to trial and then expect them to give evidence too. And no-one would in any event expect a gentlemanly barrister to make a criticism of solicitors ...
This Kat is indebted to a kind member of the Bar, who was anxious not to be identified as the supplier of a PDF of Henry Carr QC's decision; he is awarded a suitably anonymous Katpat. The case is also picked up on LexisNexis, where it is unaccountably described as being to do with patent revocation. Naughty, naughty!