UK
CoURts HAVE to stRIKE A BALAnCE BEtWEEn
tHE LEGItIMAtE IntEREsts of tHE tRADEMARK
PRoPRIEtoR AnD tHosE of tHE DIsCoUnt stoRE
luxury branded products through discount stores—in this case, Christian revocation on the ground of insuffi ciency if the only inventive step involved
Dior products—could impair the ‘aura of luxury’ around the branded in the product resides in its method of manufacture, even when only one
product and change the condition of the goods concerned. method of manufacture is disclosed and other, more superior, methods may
be available.
Courts have to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of the
trademark proprietor and those of the discount store. Th e court had to Th e lower courts had previously considered whether it is correct to consider
assess whether further commercialisation of the goods by the third party, the scope of a patent claim by reference to the inventive step, or whether a
using methods customary in its sector of trade, damages the trademark’s claim to a novel product covers all methods of producing that product, even
reputation. In reaching its decision, the court should take into account the if the patent only discloses one method of production and other unrelated
parties to whom the goods are resold and the circumstances in which the methods are found. Th e House of Lords concluded that a claim for a product
goods are put on the market. Th e Copad case is important because it further covers that product, even if made by a method not disclosed in the patent.
strengthens the hand of luxury goods manufacturers and means that they
can control their selective distribution channels more eff ectively.
In Edwards Lifesciences v. Cook Biotech, the UK courts looked at the validity
of priority claims where the right to the application is only assigned to the
Th erefore, in the trademark world, although there has not been a large number applicant aft er fi ling the application. In this case, a US provisional application
of notable decisions, at least in the fi eld of ‘reputable’ marks, a number of had been fi led in the name of three inventors, one of whom was employed at
cases have laid down fi rm pointers to the benefi t of brand owners. the time by Cook Biotech.
Th e House of Lords, as it was known until October 1, 2009 when it was A PCT application was fi led at the end of the priority year in the name of Cook
superseded by the newly created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Biotech. However, the rights of the other two inventors in the application
was only active in relation to one patent case this year—the case of Generics were not assigned to Cook Biotech until much later, aft er the application had
v. Lundbeck. Th is was an appeal against a decision to maintain Lundbeck’s entered the European regional phase. Edwards argued that the priority claim
patent, which claimed as a product the (+) enantiomer of citalopram. was invalid because the applicant, Cook Biotech, was not entitled to exercise
the right to priority at the time the right to priority had been exercised.
Th e patent discloses, for the fi rst time, a method of separating the (+) and (-)
enantiomers of citalopram. Th e novelty of the claim to the (+) enantiomer Th e UK court held that a “person who fi les a patent application for an
was not the subject of the appeal, but rather whether a patent is liable to invention is aff orded the privilege of claiming priority only if he himself fi led
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 159
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173