Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Tifosi Optics, Inc (Tifosi) seeking annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi relating to the application by Tifosi for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark. 

Trade mark – Infringement. The parties were both companies which, among other things, provided vehicle rental services. The proceedings concerned alleged infringement by the defendants of the claimant's trade mark. In the course of proceedings, the claimant made an application seeking to adduce survey evidence. The Chancery Division held that it was appropriate for the survey evidence to be adduced. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following the claimant's success in obtaining an injunction against the defendant, the claimant applied, pursuant to CPR 36.14(3)(d) in the prescribed percentages, calculated by reference to the sum awarded in respect of costs. The Queen's Bench Division held that the imposition of an additional liability would involve an element of penalty which the court did not consider just to impose on the defendant. The court would therefore decline to impose on the defendant an order for an additional amount. 

European Union – Community aid. The Court of Justice of the European Union held that the first paragraph of art 33 of Regulation 2419/2001 had to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of intentional irregularity found in an area aid application, the farmer was to be refused all of the aid to which that farmer would have been entitled under the aid scheme concerned by the application and for which the crop group concerned by that irregularity had been eligible. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. In earlier proceedings, the claimant Russian shipping companies had alleged that the various defendants had been dishonestly involved in schemes to enrich a Russian businessman. The claimants had obtained freezing orders against the defendants and gave undertakings (the undertakings) to compensate the defendants in the event that the court found them to have suffered loss consequent upon the orders. Some, but not all of the claims had succeeded. Some of the defendants to the orders (the applicants in the present proceedings) alleged that they suffered loss consequent upon those orders and that the orders had been improperly made due to alleged misrepresentation and lack of disclosure and had caused them loss. They applied for directions for an assessment of compensation for loss suffered to be paid, under the undertakings. The Commercial Court, in granting the application, held that the impropriety of the claimants who had obtained the freezing orders had been such that it would be wrong not to enforce the undertakings. The defendants had adduced sufficient evidence that the orders had caused them loss to justify an inquiry as to damages. 

Motor insurance – Rights of third parties against insurers. The claimant suffered personal injury as a result of a road traffic accident. The Motor Insurers' Bureau was the insurer of last resort became liable under the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement 1999 (the agreement). The claimant commenced proceedings. The claim was dismissed in the county court on the grounds that the claimant's claim was barred on grounds of public policy and the claimant knew or ought to have known that the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of crime, namely the transportation of cannabis for the purpose of subsequent supply, and cl 6(1)(e)(iii) of the agreement was accordingly applicable. The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal on the ex turpi causa issue on the basis that the joint criminality was only the occasion, and not the cause, of the accident but dismissed it on the cl 6(1)(e)(iii) issue. The claimant issued a new claim for damages arising as a result of the defendant Secretary of State being in breach of art 1(4) of Directive 84/5 (on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles) (the second directive). The Queen's Bench Division held that the United Kingdom, in the legal personification of the defendant, was in plain breach of EU law, and the question of liability to pay compensation on principles in Francovich v Italian Republic therefore arose. 

European Union – Access to information. The Court of Justice of the European Union considered the appeal brought by Mr Guido Strack against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court had not granted in full Mr Strack's form of order requesting annulment of several decisions of the European Commission relating to his applications for access to various documents based on Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents). 

Gaming – Lawful and unlawful gaming. The claimant casino issued proceedings to recover £1m on unpaid cheques provided by the defendant in exchange for chips, which she had lost. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the claim, held that there had been no unlawful giving of credit to the defendant. Further, the defendant had not established any claim in negligence, as it was not fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of care on the claimant to prevent her from using her cheque cashing facility. 

Arbitration – Award. Following a dispute between the parties, the claimant company, Diag, succeeded against the defendant Czech Republic in an arbitration. It sought to enforce the arbitration award in a number of countries, including Austria. The Supreme Court of Austria held that the award had not yet become binding on the parties. Diag, sought to enforce the award in the English court. The court held that the Supreme Court of Austria's decision gave rise to an issue estoppel that would prevent Diag from enforcing the judgment in the English court. 

Arbitration – Arbitrator. The Privy Council dismissed the appellant housing trust's appeal against the findings of an arbitrator in a dispute concerning land development in Jamaica. The Privy Council decided that there was no sufficient basis for the Board to disturb the arbitrator's award.