Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual property Office had not erred in finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the EU word mark 'LiLI LA TIGRESSE', sought to be registered by the applicant French resident, and an earlier EU word mark 'TIGRESS'. Consequently, the General Court of the European Union dismissed the applicant's action against the decision of EUIPO's Second Board of Appeal to uphold the opposition by the intervener company, registered in the UK, to registration of the applicant's mark.

Mental health – Persons who lack capacity. The applicant NHS trust succeeded in its application to the Court of Protection for orders, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, that a 60-year-old diabetic man (PW), who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, lacked capacity to make a decision regarding whether to undergo the leg amputation surgery to address his high risk of sepsis; and that it was lawful to carry out that surgery, having regard to PW's best interests.

Patent – Pharmaceutical patent. Actavis Group PTC EHF and other companies (the respondents) had appealed against the trial judge's decision that the dosage patent owned by ICOS Corporation and Eli Lilly & Co (the appellants), relating to the use of tadalafil in a dosage form for the treatment of sexual dysfunction was valid as it involved an inventive step. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, reached a contrary conclusion and allowed the respondents' appeal, deciding that the patent was invalid for lacking an inventive step. The Supreme Court, in upholding the Court of Appeal's decision and dismissing the appellants' against that decision, set out the factors which were relevant considerations concerning the application of the test of obviousness pursuant to s 3 of the Patents Act 1977.

Negligence – Breach of duty. The claimant company's claim against the defendant chartered surveyors failed. The Chancery Division held that the defendants had not failed to act in good faith and for a proper purpose, and had not failed to take reasonable care to obtain a proper price in selling property formerly belonging to a company in administration.

Divorce – Jurisdiction. The wife's application to amend a petition of divorce to plead that the court had the legal power to deal with the application under art 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 (indent 2), on the basis that the petitioner and respondent were last habitually resident in England and Wales and the petitioner still resided there, was dismissed. The Family Division ruled, among other things, that, on the facts, the parties had not been last habitually resident in England and Wales. They had been habitually resident last in St Lucia. Accordingly, the new ground proposed by the amended petition could not be made out.

Employment – Working time. The description of the compensatory rest required under reg 24(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 as 'equivalent' could not be intended to import the identical obligation that would have applied under reg 12. Rather, the intention had to be that the rest afforded to the worker should have the same value in terms of contributing to his or her well-being. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the employer's appeal against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and held that a period of compensatory rest under reg 24 did not have to be an uninterrupted period of at least 20 minutes.

Land registration – Rectification of register. In a claim arising from the forged transfer of a property, although the claimant tenant had standing to apply for alteration of the charges register of the property by removing the first defendant's charge, there were exceptional circumstances that justified not doing so. Accordingly, the Chancery Division dismissed the claimant's claim for an order for the rectification or alternatively the alteration of the register maintained by the second defendant.

Motor insurance – Extent of cover. Neither English domestic case law nor the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union supported the view that the carrying out of significant repairs to a vehicle on private property entailed the 'use' of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant insurer's appeal and restored the judge's declaration that it was not liable to indemnify the insured against a claim on his motor insurance policy for a fire which had resulted from work on his car.

Contract – Frustration. The claimant transportation company's application for summary judgment failed, in a dispute concerning the transporting of units of refinery plant from China to Kazakhstan. The Commercial Court held that the defendant company's defence had a real prospect of success, and that the claim should not be struck out because the defendant's cross-claim would not operate as a defence by way of set-off. However, the court made a conditional order requiring Globalink to bring into court the sum of $113,000 as a condition of being able to defend the claim as to that sum.

Company – Director. The claimant Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy sought orders disqualifying the defendants, who were the directors of two linked companies connected to a failed project to sell property in Brazil. The Chancery Division held that the second defendant's actions or inactions had not been serious failures when considering his role, his expertise and the circumstances. He had not acted with 'total negligence' or 'gross negligence' as required. However, the first defendant had misrepresented the truth and had perpetuated misrepresentations. His conduct warranted a period at the upper end of the upper bracket of disqualification, and he would be disqualified for a period of 14 years.