Scholarlink

<p>2024 was a very exciting year for those in the field of intellectual property, with some long awaited and significant decisions. Many of these involved household names, fought out by large brand owners. The long-awaiting Supreme Court decision in <i>SkyKick UK Ltd v. Sky Ltd</i> gave us clarity on the considerations for bad faith in respect of the goods and services covered by trade mark applications. <i>Shorts International Limited v. Google LLC</i> reminds us of the difficulties in enforcing marks with a low level of distinctive character, securing a registration is not the last hurdle such marks will face. The battle between brand owners and lookalike producers took a step forward in favour of brand owners with the Court of Appeal decision in <i>Thatcher’s Cider Company Limited v. Aldi Stores Limited</i>, many a glass was raised when this decision was published<i>.</i> We learned from <i>Marks and Spencer Plc v. Aldi Stores Limited</i> that designers should take care when testing designs out on the market, as this could later impact the protection afforded by a registration for the one they take forward. The tables were turned in&#xa0;the <i>Lidl v. Tesco</i> appeal<i>.</i> While copyright protection might be available for relatively simple logos/designs, the scope of protection will mirror this and therefore they may only be enforceable against identical or near identical third-party logos/designs. The persisting tension between UK and EU copyright law was explored in <i>WaterRower v. Liking.</i> The threshold for copyright subsistence varies with EU law dictating no aesthetic quality is required and UK law demanding there to be something more than “eye appeal” for a work to qualify as a work of artistic craftsmanship. Lastly, another well-known brand and party in <i>Thom Browne v. Adidas</i> where the focus was on the scope of protection afforded to position marks, in relation to the renowned three stripes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

UK Trade Mark Cases Overview 2024

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月26日

查看全文
  • Hannah Cramp,
  • Catherine Byfield,
  • Harneet Sekhon

摘要

2024 was a very exciting year for those in the field of intellectual property, with some long awaited and significant decisions. Many of these involved household names, fought out by large brand owners. The long-awaiting Supreme Court decision in SkyKick UK Ltd v. Sky Ltd gave us clarity on the considerations for bad faith in respect of the goods and services covered by trade mark applications. Shorts International Limited v. Google LLC reminds us of the difficulties in enforcing marks with a low level of distinctive character, securing a registration is not the last hurdle such marks will face. The battle between brand owners and lookalike producers took a step forward in favour of brand owners with the Court of Appeal decision in Thatcher’s Cider Company Limited v. Aldi Stores Limited, many a glass was raised when this decision was published. We learned from Marks and Spencer Plc v. Aldi Stores Limited that designers should take care when testing designs out on the market, as this could later impact the protection afforded by a registration for the one they take forward. The tables were turned in the Lidl v. Tesco appeal. While copyright protection might be available for relatively simple logos/designs, the scope of protection will mirror this and therefore they may only be enforceable against identical or near identical third-party logos/designs. The persisting tension between UK and EU copyright law was explored in WaterRower v. Liking. The threshold for copyright subsistence varies with EU law dictating no aesthetic quality is required and UK law demanding there to be something more than “eye appeal” for a work to qualify as a work of artistic craftsmanship. Lastly, another well-known brand and party in Thom Browne v. Adidas where the focus was on the scope of protection afforded to position marks, in relation to the renowned three stripes.