Latest Cases

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by EI du Pont de Nemours and Co (Ei du Pont) against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market relating to opposition proceedings between EI du Pont and Mr Enrique Zueco Ruiz concerning the application by the latter for registration of a figurative sign 'ZYTEL' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union allowed the action brought by Farmaceutisk Laboratorium Ferring A/S (Farmaceutisk) against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings between Farmaceutisk and Tillotts Pharma AG (Tillotts) relating to the application by Tillotts for registration of the word sign 'OCTASA' as a Community trade mark. 

Criminal law – Appeal. In an unsuccessful appeal against conviction and sentence where the defendant received a nine year sentence for one count of rape, the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division provided guidance on the proper approach on deciding whether to exclude evidence of sexual behaviour of a complainant relating to a 'relevant issue in the case' within the meaning of s 41(2) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. In the instant case it was held that the trial judge's ruling not to adduce certain evidence had not deprived the defendant of a fair trial and the nine year sentence he received was not manifestly excessive. 

Sentence – Minimum period of imprisonment. The offender was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of ten years. He applied for a reduction of that tariff. The Administrative Court held that, while the offender had continued to make very good progress in prison, on the evidence, it was not possible to conclude that his progress had been exceptional. The application was dismissed. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The defendant had been convicted of murder of a Korean language student after stabbing her three times in the back. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division after he contended that post-trial accounts of a prosecution witness and fresh evidence indicating someone else committed the murder rendered his own conviction unsafe. Upon analysis of the evidence, it was held that neither the cross-examination of the prosecution witness nor the other evidence led to the conclusion that someone other than the defendant committed the murder. Accordingly, the conviction was deemed safe. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Pico Food GmbH (Pico) against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) relating to opposition proceedings between Pico and Mr Bogumil Sobieraj concerning the latter's application for registration of a figurative sign 'MILANOWEK CREAM FUDGE', representing a cow. 

Company – Scheme of arrangement. The Chancery Division sanctioned a scheme of arrangement to restructure two companies in the Stemcor steel-trading group. 

Criminal law – Bail. The claimant was charged with grievously bodily harm with intent and threatening a person with a blade. He was denied bail at the Youth Court and appealed to the Crown Court. The Crown Court judge refused bail and the claimant applied for judicial review. Allowing the claim and quashing the decision to refuse bail upon stringent conditions, the Administrative Court held that in the instant case the reasons given by the judge for refusing bail could not have reasonably been relied upon to deny C bail. The judge had taken into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account at all. 

Criminal law – Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division refused a defendant barrister's application for leave to appeal against his conviction of cheating the public revenue in circumstances where the defendant challenged the prosecution's late submission of documentary evidence at trial and contended that the judge's summing up was unbalanced, unfair and defective. Although there was no criticism in the submission of the documentary evidence, there was criticism in the manner of the judge's summing up. Nevertheless, the summing up was not significantly inaccurate and was not in any way unfair as to render the conviction unsafe. 

Adoption – Application. The appellant had cared for a child for the first 18 months of his life. She was not related to him. The local authority obtained a placement order in respect of the child and he was placed with prospective adopters. The appellant applied within the adoption proceedings for leave to oppose. That application was refused and the judge also considered that any application that might be made by the appellant for a residence order under s 10(9) of the Children Act 1989 would be unjustified. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the appellant's application could have been dealt with as an application for leave to apply for a residence order under s 29(4) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 but, on its merits, her application would be dismissed.