Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the applicant's action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Beyond Retro Ltd (Retro) and S&K Garments, Inc.(S&K), concerning S&K's obtaining international registration of the word mark 'BEYOND VINTAGE' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Asos plc (Asos), established in the United Kingdom, against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Roger Maier and Asos, concerning the application by Asos for registration of the word mark 'ASOS' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Simca Europe Ltd (Simca) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to invalidity proceedings between GIE PSA Peugeot Citroën and Simca, concerning the application by Simca's predecessor for registration of the word sign 'Simca' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Pedro Group Pte Ltd (Pedro) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), relating to opposition proceedings between Cortefiel, SA, and Pedro concerning the application by Pedro for registration of the word sign 'PEDRO' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Directive (EC) 2004/83 and of art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request had been made in proceedings between Mr. N., a Pakistani national and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ireland) and the Attorney General concerning the Minister's refusal to consider Mr N.'s application for subsidiary protection status on the basis that he had not previously submitted an application for refugee status. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Pakistani national entered the United Kingdom lawfully as a student. He did not leave the UK and completed his MBA whilst he did not have valid leave. The claimant applied for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) migrant, relying on the award of his MBA. The defendant Secretary of State refused that application. The decision contained a typographical error. The claimant sought judicial review. In dismissing the application, the Administrative Court held that there was no room in a points-based system for a near miss principle, and in the instant case, the fact that the claimant's leave had expired two months before the completion of his MBA had not been a near miss justifying the grant of leave. Further, the typographical errors in the decision letter had been immaterial. In any event, the decision had been withdrawn and a correct decision substituted in its place, which could not be ignored. 

Practice – Stay of proceedings. The proceedings concerned a dispute concerning work carried out in Pakistan. In the course of the dispute, proceedings were issued in Pakistan by the defendants, but stayed by the Pakistani court. The claimant company commenced proceedings in England and obtained judgment in default against the defendants. The defendants applied to have, among other things, an order allowing the claimant to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction and judgment in default set aside. The Commercial Court held that the challenge to jurisdiction would fail, but the judgment would be set aside to allow the claim to be defended on limited grounds. 

Criminal law – Assault. The appellant was diagnosed with genital herpes. He entered into a sexual relationship with the victim, but did not tell her about that diagnosis. The victim was diagnosed with genital herpes. The appellant pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and was sentenced to 14 months custody. The appellant appealed against conviction and sentence. Dismissing the appeal against conviction, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that there had been sufficient evidence to sustain a charge under s 20 of the Act. Further, the appellant had not been failed by his legal representative in the preparation of his case in such a way as to call into question the safety of his conviction. Furthermore, the appellant's guilty plea had been a properly informed, voluntary and unequivocal plea of guilty. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the initial sentence had been appropriate. However, there had been a substantial delay which had not been of the appellant's own making. In those circumstances, a course would not be taken which would necessitate the appellant's return to custody. 

Human rights – Right to liberty and security. The important question raised by the instant case was whether the United Kingdom government had any right in law to imprison people in Afghanistan; and, if so, what was the scope of that right. The claimant, was captured by UK armed forces during a military operation in Afghanistan. He was imprisoned on British military bases in Afghanistan for some time when he was transferred into the custody of the Afghan authorities. The claimant claimed that his detention by UK armed forces was unlawful (a) under the Human Rights Act 1998 and (b) under the law of Afghanistan. The Queen's Bench Division held that his extended detention for a total of 106 days beyond the 96 hours permitted by policy was not authorised and was contrary to both Afghan law and the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimant brought claims in the United Kingdom and in Venezuela against the defendant International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, seeking declarations that the defendant was liable to indemnify it in respect of its liability to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for claims following an oil spill. The claimant sought freezing orders in respect of both the UK and the Venezuelan proceedings. The defendant contended that it had immunity from the grant of any freezing order under the International Oil Pollution Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1979, SI 1979/912, (the Order). The Commercial Court held that the defendant did not have such immunity in relation to the English court proceedings. The immunity conferred under s 6(1) of the order was only granted if and to the extent that the 'suit or legal process' did not fall within one of the listed exceptions. Legal process included a freezing order. Therefore, the exceptions covered freezing orders. A freezing order was granted in respect of proceedings in the UK only.