Latest Cases

European Union – Commission. The applicant company alleged that its greenhouse gas emission allowances were stolen. It issued proceedings, contending that the European Union was liable by virtue of the European Commission's unlawful conduct in refusing to disclose the location of and prohibit all transactions concerning the allowances allegedly stolen. It alternatively contended that the EU had strict liability by virtue of the Commission's lawful conduct. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that it had not been established that the forms of conduct of which the Commission was accused were unlawful. Further, the damage alleged had not been unusual so as to establish strict liability. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment in specified respects of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (the Board), upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division, finding its Community trade mark 'sensi scandia' to be invalid. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the difference between the mark and an earlier Community word mark 'SCANDIA HOME' was insufficient to exclude all likelihood of confusion between the trade marks on the part of the public. 

Tort – Harassment. The claimants, who were involved in the running of amusement parks, sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from sending mass emails and setting up websites in which he campaigned on the issue of safety in theme parks, and criticised the claimants and other individuals. The Queen's Bench Division, in dismissing the application, held that there had been no course of conduct which amounted to harassment. Accordingly, the claimants had not established that there was a serious question to be tried, still less that they were more likely than not to succeed. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Moroccan national sought damages for unlawful immigration detention for a period of 22 months. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the application, held that the first period of 12 months had been lawful. However, when applications for an emergency travel document had failed within a further two-month period, it should have been clear that the detention had been longer than had been lawful. Accordingly, eight months of the 22 months of detention had been unlawful. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), upholding the decision of the Cancellation Division, finding his trade mark to be invalid. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the Board had not assessed the distinctive character of the contested mark incorrectly or misapplied art 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009, in taking the view that the evidence had not been sufficient to show that the mark had become distinctive through the use made of it. 

Employment – Remuneration. The employer had identified on the employee's itemised pay statements the deduction from his gross salary which it had made in respect of overpayments relating to sick leave. Those had been separately shown with a minus sign next to them, but the employer had not identified what the deductions were. In contrast to the employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, held that the itemised pay statements, in particular, the minus entries, were deductions, as provided for by s 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and their purpose should have been identified. 

Equity – Breach of confidence. The claimant had approached the first defendant bank (Barclays), intending to obtain financial assistance to pursue a valuable project. The claimant brought a claim for misuse of confidentiality and exclusivity agreements against Barclays and the second defendant company in respect of the project. The Chancery Division ruled that Barclays and the second defendant company had breached obligations of confidentiality by misusing confidential information for the purpose of establishing a strategic partnership between them, but had not breached the exclusivity agreements. Accordingly, the claimant was entitled to compensation of €10m. 

Employment tribunal – Procedure. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claim for constructive unfair dismissal against the employer, but declined to determine whether there was a TUPE transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in dismissing the employee's appeal, held that whether there had been a TUPE transfer of employees had not been an issue for the tribunal to determine and, although the tribunal judge's choice of language at one point during the hearing had been open to criticism, a fair-minded and informed observer would not have thought there was a real possibility of bias. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to proceedings between the applicant and intervener, concerning registration of the figurative sign 'So' Bio ētic' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The applicant sought the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (the Board), upholding the Opposition Division's rejection of its opposition to the registration of the intervener company's mark. The General Court of the European Union, in dismissing the action, held that the Board incorrectly concluded there was no proof that an earlier mark enjoyed a reputation, but absent any link between the marks, the use of the mark applied for was not likely to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinct character or the repute of the earlier mark.