“Utterly horrified” masters and “blatantly inadmissible” evidence
The sole result for a search on Westlaw for the phrase “utterly horrified” is an interesting decision from Mr Justice Arnold on June 12 2019 about evidence in passing off proceedings.
The sole result for a search on Westlaw for the phrase “utterly horrified” is an interesting decision from Mr Justice Arnold on June 12 2019 about evidence in passing off proceedings.
The decision was handed down at the pre-trial review in Glaxo v Sandoz and others, a claim in passing off. Glaxo markets a successful, and purple, asthma inhaler. Sandoz launched a competing inhaler, which is also purple. Glaxo claims this is deceptive, and that it amounts to an actionable misrepresentation that Sandoz’s products are “equivalent” to Glaxo’s products. This is an ambitious argument which if successful would expand the law of passing off.
The decision following trial is expected in October, but the pre-trial review decision was also interesting. The Defendants sought to exclude some of Glaxo’s evidence, and the judge agreed to most of the exclusions.
At an earlier hearing, Glaxo had objected to the defendants adducing evidence from experts. The Chief Master accepted that. He also said that, in respect of part of the evidence sought to be adduced, there was some force in Glaxo’s submission “that the Defendants' application is an attempt to brand evidence from the three medical professionals as "expert" to enhance its value whereas, in reality, it should properly be seen as ordinary evidence of the type normally introduced in claims of this sort”.
Glaxo subsequently filed evidence from three clinical academics. Mr Justice Arnold said that he was in “no doubt whatsoever” that much of what was included in the three statements was really expert evidence. He also thought the Chief Master would be “utterly horrified” at the prospect that Glaxo were seeking to adduce the same sort of evidence it had asked him to exclude the defendants from adducing. Some limited passages that contained factual evidence from the witnesses’ own experience were allowed.
Further passages were excluded on other grounds. These included commentary on documents which had been provided by Glaxo’s solicitors – this was “blatantly inadmissible”. Although evidence of relevant personal experience was admissible, speculation on the thought processes and reactions of others, and on the ultimate question (i.e. would the get up of the Sandoz products deceive the relevant public?) was not. Glaxo sought permission to appeal, which was refused.
There is a severe challenge in providing evidence in trade mark and passing off cases. Surveys were criticised in Interflora; expert evidence is not allowed; trade evidence cannot go beyond individual experience, which is inevitably limited and unrepresentative. This means we are often left only with judicial impression, which is obviously problematic.
Contact
Giles Parsons
Partner
giles.parsons@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)20 7337 1505
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
The EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA)
Legal Update
Breaking the glass ceiling: Empowering female leadership in the food and drink sector
Legal Update
IP insights: October 2024
Legal Update
CJEU confirms that copyright law is the same for all claimants
Legal Update
Court of Appeal declares that Panasonic’s refusal to grant an interim licence is not FRAND
Legal Update
EasyGroup proceedings defeated by jurisdictional challenge
Legal Update
Insurability by design: Increased transparency for vehicle manufacturers and insurers
Legal Update
Navigating the waters of compliance: Understanding the Trade, Aircraft, and Shipping Sanctions (Civil Enforcement) Regulations 2024
Training
Register your interest to join our next Home Delivery Academy
Opinion
Forced labour goods: a landmark decision
Legal Update
ASA bans “misleading” Huel and ZOE ads endorsed by Dragon’s Den Star
Guide
Guidance for manufacturers of EVs and HEVs in the UK: ASA's non-exhaustive electric vehicle advertising guidance
Opinion
New hope for the manufacturing sector?
Guide
EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: Guide for your business
Legal Update
(Deep)fake it till you make it? The ASA's role in regulating false celebrity endorsements
Press Release
Jeanne Kelly recognised in the list of Top 100 people in Irish Tech by the Business Post
Press Release
New resource will support university innovation
Legal Update
A reflection of FIMA Connect 2024
Press Release
Browne Jacobson wins UK Impact Case of the Year at the Managing IP EMEA Awards 2024
Legal Update
Forest Risk Commodities regulations: Steps food businesses should take
Legal Update
Cyber-attacks in UK universities: Why failing to prepare is no longer an option
Press Release
Browne Jacobson Ireland LLP rank across Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property and Technology in the Legal 500 EMEA 2024
Legal Update
Artificial intelligence – shaping a sustainable future
Legal Update
ASA ruling on Calvin Klein FKA Twigs advertisement
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked in World Trademark Review 2024
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: IP protection
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: Advertising pitfalls
Legal Update
The rise of AI in construction
Legal Update
An update on the independent review of university spin-out companies
On-Demand
Copyright issues with AI webinar
Published Article
The reasons for asset-based lending’s growing acceptance as a preferred funding source
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Harnessing the potential of knowledge exchange, research and innovation
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise on international sale of entertainment company Music For Pets
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Legal Update
Knowledge exchange and intellectual property
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Press Release
Court of Appeal makes plea for legally enforceable arbitration for FRAND disputes
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Published Article
AI generated designs on retail products
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
Published Article
Bruce Willis AI and the problem with deepfakes
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.