“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...
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
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
On-Demand
Register your interest to join our next Home Delivery Academy
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.
Legal Update
Creating a profitable future for your university intellectual property
On-Demand
NFTs and Smart Contracts - an in-house lawyers perspective
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s IP experts shine silver in world’s leading trade mark lawyer rankings
Opinion
Are whistleblowers entitled to keep their employer’s confidential documents?
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
Published Article
Tipping the balance: Assessing patent infringement
In July this year, four years to the month after its introduction into UK law in the Supreme Court’s seminal judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly, the court handed down its latest decision applying the ‘doctrine of equivalents’.
Published Article
Court of Appeal upholds decision that AI machines cannot be ‘inventors’
Published Article
Women in knowledge exchange and spinouts
Press Release
Browne Jacobson's IP team celebrates UK rankings success in latest Legal 500
Press Release
Reaction: Intellectual Property Enterprise Court judgment finds patent infringement based solely on equivalents
Reaction: Intellectual Property Enterprise Court judgment finds patent infringement based solely on equivalents
On-Demand
Diversity in spinouts, start-ups and early stage funding
Legal Update
Health care apps – Part 1 of 2: Exploring the ins and outs of intellectual property (IP)
On-Demand
In-House Lawyers: Brexit, intellectual property and commercial contracts
Covid-19 and the challenges associated with it grind on into a second wave. Not only that but there’s the prospect of Brexit and a looming recession ahead. It would be entirely forgivable not to be on top of the law right now. Watch our on-demand video, where we have discussed Brexit and intellectual property and consumer and commercial law changes.
Guide
Brexit overview: intellectual property and Brexit
We can how help you understand the potential issues that any changes will have on your business.
Legal Update
Could your new Covid-19 related intellectual property (IP) be commandeered by the Crown?
Universities across the nation have been working valiantly to produce a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, otherwise known as Covid-19, in addition to working tirelessly on new testing options. It is easy in these times to forget that universities may still own valuable intellectual property (IP) created in these efforts.
Opinion
Sky’s overly broad trade marks narrowed as found partially invalid for bad faith
Lord Justice Arnold has applied the guidance of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to the evidence before him, in the long standing trade mark dispute between Sky and Skykick.
Legal Update
Amazon not liable for merely storing third party’s infringing goods
At a time when Amazon is fielding large spikes in demand amidst the coronavirus pandemic, the online retail platform will welcome the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) received on 2 April 2020.
Legal Update
Domain names as IP rights
On-Demand
How to commercialise your IP: licensing, spin outs and JVs
Our expert panel, comprised of IP and corporate law specialists, will be discussing IP commercialisation strategies, their benefits and pitfalls, drawing on experience across the private, public and higher education sectors.