Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union partly upheld the action brought by The Smiley Company SPRL (Smiley) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between the examiner and Smiley regarding the application by the latter for registration of a trade mark of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a face. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Aeronautica) against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Aeronautica and Creative Brands Marken GmbH regarding the application by the latter for registration of the figurative sign 'TRECOLORE' as a Community trade mark. 

Costs – Order for costs. Following earlier proceedings (see [2015] All ER (D) 279 (Oct)), the Chancery Division ruled that that the third respondent ought to pay to the petitioning creditor the costs fairly attributable to its response to her own hostile rescission application and to her particular opposition to the class remedy sought by the petitioning creditor (though not those costs which would have been incurred even if she had not appeared). 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Administrative Court, reduced the offender's tariff of 17 years and 1 month for murder by ten months, as the offender's progress had been exceptional. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The claimant Romany Gypsy challenged the decision of the inspector appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State, dismissing his appeal against the second defendant local planning authority's refusal of planning permission for the change of use of land to a single pitch Gypsy site for one mobile home and one touring caravan. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the inspector's decision had been one which had been free of any legal error. 

European Union – Jurisdiction. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling, deciding that Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 should be interpreted as meaning that the approval of an agreement for the sharing-out of an estate concluded by a guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children constituted a measure relating to the exercise of parental responsibility, within the meaning of art 1(1)(b) of that regulation and thus fell within the scope of the latter, and not a measure relating to succession, within the meaning of art 1(30(f) thereof, excluded from the scope thereof. 

Limitation of action – Period of limitation. A judge had determined that a standstill agreement between the parties, which provided that time would be suspended for the purposes of any limitation defence in relation to claims made by the claimant, did not have the effect of suspending time in relation to the claimant's claims in deceit. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal as, on the proper construction of that agreement, the claims in dishonesty arose indirectly from the background to the claims as set out in the agreement. 

Company – Administration order. The Chancery Division considered, among other things, the circumstances in which a former administrator of a company in administration could seek relief against the restoration of a company to the register. It held that it was appropriate to make a winding-up order regarding the company, but no order would be made treating the petition seeking the restoration of the company to the register and for its immediate winding up as if it had been made on a date other than the one when it had actually been made. 

Sentence – Mandatory life sentence. The Administrative Court refused to recommend a reduction of the offender's tariff of 12 years, less the time spent in custody on remand, for murder, as exceptional and unforeseen progress had not been established. 

Family proceedings – Orders in family proceedings. The Family Division found that, for the purposes of art 8 of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 (Brussels II), the place of habitual residence of the children with whom the proceedings were concerned was the United Kingdom. The UK was better placed to hear the evidence as, among other things, the options for the children's future care were not focused in Lithuania but in the UK.