Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union upheld the plea by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Meica), alleging infringement of art 8(3) of Regulation (EC) 216/96 in the context of opposition proceedings between Meica and Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA, regarding the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'STICK MiniMINI Beretta' as a Community trade mark. Consequently, the General Court partially annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), in so far as it had rejected Meica's submissions concerning the services in Class 43 of the Nice Agreement. 

Negligence – Causation. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed the claimant's proceedings against the defendant NHS Trust for injury and loss allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant's medical and midwifery staff in the management of her mother's labour. On the evidence, the claimant could not establish medical causation. 

Practice – Summary judgment. The Chancery Division, in granting the claimants' application for summary judgment, ruled that they were entitled to specific performance of agreements for the assignment to them of patents concerning technology used for eliminating airborne pathogens. The defendants had to do as they had agreed and execute the assignment documentation and there had been no condition precedent in the agreements that the obligation to assign the patents did not arise unless and until royalties had been paid, either in whole or in part. 

Employment – Discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (the EAT), allowing the employee's appeal, held that an employment tribunal (the tribunal) had erred on a number of points relating to claims brought by the employee for, among other things, harassment. The tribunal had dismissed the employee's claim for harassment, as the employee did not personally share the protected characteristics referred to. The EAT held that that was not necessary for a claim of harassment to succeed. The EAT further held, in dismissing the employer's cross-appeal, that knowledge of the employee's disability was not a pre-requisite for the employee bringing a claim of disability discrimination. The case was remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration on the harassment point. 

Patent – Infringement. The Patents Court made rulings in a claim concerning transgenic mice that could be used as platforms for therapeutic antibody discovery. In dismissing the claim of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, the court held that the defendants' counterclaim for insufficiency in the patent succeeded, and hence all the patents in issue were invalid. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division dismissed a claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her application for an interim payment, which had been made in the course of proceedings in which she claimed damages against the defendant NHS trust for personal injuries she alleged she had sustained as a result of clinical negligence. On the present state of the evidence and argument, the court could not be satisfied that, if the claim went to trial, the claimant would obtain judgment for a substantial amount of money. 

Landlord and tenant – Opposition to grant of new tenancy of business premises. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed a landlord's appeal in respect of a declaration that he had not established his entitlement to rely on s 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and an order that a new tenancy of business premises should be granted by the landlord to the tenant. The case was remitted for a re-trial before a different judge. 

Criminal law – Sexual offences. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division held that a total sentence of two years' imprisonment, suspended for two years, for the offences of sexual assault on a person under 13, two counts of making indecent photographs of a child and two counts of possessing indecent photographs of a child, had been unduly lenient. Instead, a total sentence of 36 months of immediate imprisonment would be imposed. 

Family proceedings – Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in allowing the appellants appeal held, in a case of determining whether the court had jurisdiction based on habitual residence of a child, that the modern concept of a child's habitual residence operated in the expectation that when a child had a new habitual residence, he lost his old one. Only a degree of integration was required in the new state. It was highly unlikely that a child would be left in limbo without a habitual residence. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed an appeal against a care order made in respect of an adopted boy. The judge had failed adequately to analyse the evidence or explain his reasons for reaching the conclusion that he had. There had been a number of issues that could have resulted in findings of fact which, had the judge made them, could have been considered in determining whether the boy could have returned to live with his parents.