![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDUZIAb-JFpOWXKbnzA6REV3YvXRzcYfKI1IpO5f1gIf62nAn2FATL92LPfWoz-hZGagTL3HuLX0ifqTJOVBk_FbZ8aTjDZ7FMA1QGoIe3xNTFWGbqsKkzEkoLVq2vN8SFYNvmSJ3_SQ/s200/turb.jpg)
On the question of how generous a judge should be (not very generous, it seems) when making an interim award of damages for patent infringement,
Alan Nuttall Ltd v Fri-Jado UK Ltd and another, Patents Court for England and Wales, 30 July 2010, at [2010] EWHC 1966 (Pat), the analysis of Mr Justice Kitchin can be read on PatLit
here.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEW1qw2KIYcRGlePkrPxJDQitQIRBEVrj_asp0UWE_ZQVILYo2fOWoKdvDNLcq36pNhQ1_9sleYnRurN3i8I1xqOrv5VJr_XwIXFAv8mvFmUWRMb0sTfDPOYnw3__3lGMU1nlVd5rBww/s200/autopaint.jpg)
A bigger issue -- that of how much, if any, of the blame for the total collapse of a trade mark owner's business can be attributed to the activities of an infringer -- is considered in the somewhat tortuous case of
Fearns (trading as Autopaint International) v Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical and others [2010] EWHC 1708 (Ch), 9 July 2010, a Chancery Division, England and Wales, ruling of George Leggatt QC, serving as a Deputy Judge. You can contemplate this ruling on Class 46
here.
No comments:
Post a Comment