Under our previous article: “Trade mark law update – Stella McCartney when ‘Nude’ goes to court” we discussed the issues which surrounded this weeks recent trade mark infringement case between Stella McCartney (SM) and Nude Brands (NB).
Essentially, NB are seeking redress for the fact that SM has been using the word “Nude” in their brand “Stellanude au de toilette”.
It is in the context of interim proceedings that this week’s article will be concerned.
Floyd J stated that: “I regard the likelihood of actual confusion between the products in the market place in the form in which they are currently presented as minimal.”
If there is no likelihood of confusion found at trial an argument under section 10(2) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 will fail under: Sabel v Puma.
In relation to the injunction Floyd also felt “that the balance of injustice in this case requires me to refuse the injunction.”
Floyd added that the reason why he did not award the injunction was that “the effect of an injunction wrongly granted against SML would be to cause a massive disruption to their business, and probably cause them to abandon use of the brand altogether.”
Keeping watching this space for more updates.