New guidance on assessing an account for profits of passing off
HHJ Pelling QC has offered some useful guidance on assessing an account of profits for passing off in his recent judgment, Nigel Woolley & Others v Up Global Sourcing UK Ltd & Others  EWHC 493.
The first claimant, Mr Woolley, was the owner of the Community trademark HENLEY for, among other things, watches. He exclusively licensed the trademark to the second claimant, Timesource, which offered a range of watches, including one range under the HENLEY brand.
The second defendant, Henleys Clothing (subsequently renamed The Lacmanda Group), was the owner of trademark HENLEYS for, among other things, clothes. It granted the first defendant, Ultimate Products (subsequently renamed Up Global Sourcing UK), a licence to use its trademark on watches. Ultimate Products then supplied a range of watches bearing the HENLEYS mark to wholesalers. It also supplied a small amount of these watches to Henleys Clothing, which sold them through its website and passed the remainder on at cost to its retail arm, Henleys Retail…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The defence of illegality – which prevents a claimant from bringing a claim that arises out of its own illegal acts – can’t be used where the company is claiming against its directors.
Principle of the free movement of capital upheld in recent decision.