Archive for the ‘Commercial Litigation’ Category

Reasonable Approach Pays in Court

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

Keeping your head (and thereby taking a reasonable approach) when all about you are losing theirs can pay dividends in court.

In a recent case involving the break-up of a limited liability partnership (LLP), a partner who had been effectively expelled by the other members made an offer to them, in open correspondence (correspondence which is not legally privileged), that they should buy out his share in the LLP at fair market value.
 
The offer was rejected. When the case went to court, the court ordered that the ex-partner’s share should be bought out by the other members of the partnership at fair market value.
 
Because he had made the offer in open correspondence, the court ruled that the ex-partner’s costs should be settled on an ‘indemnity’ basis, which means he will receive approximately 90 per cent of his costs from the losers. Normally, the winner can expect to receive about 70 per cent of their costs from the loser.
The courts generally react favourably to litigants who are shown to have tried to adopt a reasonable approach.
 
We can help you negotiate a successful outcome to your commercial dispute.

Posted in Commercial Litigation | Comments Off

Trade Mark Infringement Can be Based on Sound

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

Infringement of a trade mark need not be a visual issue: a trade mark can be infringed when the sound of the trade mark is infringed..

 
The case arose when the international toy manufacturer Hasbro alleged that its trade mark ‘PLAY-DOH’ had been infringed by a company selling ‘Play Dough’, an edible dough for children. The marks were not similar in appearance, nor were the products physically identical.
 
The defendants argued that PLAY-DOH had become synonymous with modelling clay and was thus so generic in meaning that it had lost its distinctiveness. It would not therefore qualify for trade mark protection. They also argued that if the words PLAY-DOH could be extended to cover ‘Play Dough’, then they lacked ‘distinctive character’, which is a necessity for a trade mark to be enforceable.
 
The court rejected both arguments.
 
It is good sense to make sure that you research trade marks before you start to use any trading style.We can assist you to make sure that you do not infringe others’ trade marks, and help you to protect your own trade marks and the rights attached to them.
 

Posted in Commercial Litigation | Comments Off