Clash Of Patriots Heads For A Amount Trial

In Bayer Cropscience SA five Agropharm Ltd (18 June, noted inwards the subscription-only LexisNexis All England Reporter Bayer Cropscience, a French company, owned the registered score PATRIOT for goods designed to kill weeds in addition to vermin. Bayer argued that since 1991 it had continuously in addition to extensively used the score inwards the UK. From 1993 Agropharm sold populace wellness insecticide nether the cite Patriot Flying in addition to Crawling Insect Killer, too equally 2 other products called Patriot C in addition to Patriot P. Bayer sued for merchandise score infringement, alleging either same-mark/same-goods (Trade Marks Act 1994, s.10(1)) or similar-marks/similar-goods-plus-likelihood of confusion (Trade Marks Act 1994, s.10(2)), seeking summary judgment. It was accepted that, if a decisive determination could non last arrived at nether s 10(1), consideration of the likelihood of confusion of the average consumer nether s 10(2) was non appropriate for summary judgment.

Mr Justice Patten dismissed the application for summary judgment. Although the courtroom could approach the Patriot C in addition to Patriot P signs on the footing that i alphabetic quality did non brand much difference, it was incorrect in addition to unwise to determine the representative definitively on a summary judgment application when, inwards lodge to produce so, the courtroom would receive got to assume what the average consumer would receive got inwards mind.

agrees that the nation of hear of the consumer cannot last second-guessed inwards summary proceedings, but notes that at that topographic point has been a spate of cases lately inwards which, for perfectly goods reasons, the courts receive got refused summary judgment: this is either because claimants maintain applying for it where they shouldn’t or because the courts receive got larn increasingly reluctant to grant it.

Pests here, here and here
Patriots here and here
Patriotic pests here and here