Vehicle rental giant, Enterprise Holdings, has won a trade mark infringement and passing off claim against its competitor Europcar, over Enterprise’s “e” trade mark and Europcar’s “e” logo. Mr Justice Arnold recognised that Enterprise’s “e” has “an enhanced distinctive character”, and he noted a survey commissioned by Enterprise in which significant numbers of the public associated the “e” with Enterprise. Simon Chapman, partner at Lewis Silkin LLP, who acted for Enterprise, says the decision ensured “clear blue water” between his client and its competitors.
15 January 2015
Enterprise wins trade mark dispute against Europcar
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch
Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice
Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr
Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team
Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown
Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team
NEWS
NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)
NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
