header-logo header-logo

Trade mark

11 August 2017
Issue: 7758 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

R v M; R v C; R v T [2017] UKSC 58, [2017] All ER (D) 20 (Aug)

On the true construction of s 92(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, signs (or trade marks) which had been applied to goods for which there had originally been an authorisation of manufacture by the registered trade mark holder, but whose sale had not been authorised by him, fell squarely within the description in s 92(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll