Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Richard Hacon (instructed by Shoosmiths) for the Claimants Robert Onslow (instructed by Lamb & Holmes) for the First Defendant Denise McFarland (instructed by Collyer Bristow) for the Second to Fourth Defendants Hearing dates : 25th, 26th and 27th November 2003 ____________________
I was not told who were the authors of those drawings, but the AirWair drawing was based on the doodles and handwriting of Bill Griggs himself.
From 1988 onwards the combined logo has always [2] appeared on the sock sole of Dr Martens footwear. (As its name implies, the "sock sole" is the part of a boot or shoe that your sock rests on.) As I understand it, the AirWair logo continues to appear on the loop attached to the heel.
Note 1 The Second Claimants are the successors to the original Griggs firm. The Third Claimants deal with the wholesaling of Dr Martens products. The First Claimants are the holding company. There is no need to distinguish between them for the purposes of this judgment and so I shall refer to them as �Griggs�. [Back]
Note 2 There may have been small variations or modifications at various times, but the essence of the matter is stated in the text. [Back]
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.