Fight for Style

UK Channel Management Ltd v E! Entertainment Inc and another, found on the subscription-only LexisNexis Butterworth service, is a Chancery Division for England and Wales decision from Mr Justice Lewison last Thursday, 11 October 2007.

Channel owned several television channels in the United Kingdom, designated under the umbrella 'UKTV'. One such channel was designated 'UKTV Style'. A rival company, E!, proposed to launch a new television channel called 'The Style Network' in early 2008. Channel moved to prevent E! designating its channel as 'The Style Network' on the basis that to do so would either infringe its Community trade mark or constitute passing-off. In its supporting evidence Channel wanted to adduce various questionnaires, the first of which being an omnibus survey in which Channel had itself participated; the second questionnaire was specifically commissioned by Channel and the third was produced in response to E!'s criticisms of the second one. Would the court let Channel adduce this evidence?

Lewison J took an eclectic approach, ruling as follows:

* to let the omnibus survey be adduced was problematic, not least since Channel wasn't able to produce the questionnaires which were actually used or the instructions given to the interviewers. Even apart from that, it was of little evidential value. In those circumstances no leave would not be granted to adduce it;

* as for the second survey, its first question presupposed upon a situation that had was not the same as that of this dispute. This being so, E!'s objections were well founded and leave to adduce it would also be refused;

* the third survey was less objectionable. An effort had been made to produce a more balanced questionnaire, the evidential worth of which would be a matter for the judge at trial. In those circumstances, leave would be granted for its admission in evidence.
Right: the IPKat has always liked omnibuses, with or without surveys

The IPKat is always tantalised by these little notes. There's always something interesting floating around in them, but never quite enough information to make them useful. Merpel says, this decision does serve to remind everyone how cautious British courts are when it comes to admitting survey evidence.

Good style here
Fight for Style Fight for Style Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, October 14, 2007 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:

Powered by Blogger.