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.
Mr. Henry Carr QC and Mr. Mark Vanhegan (instructed by Wiggin & Co) for the Claimants Mr. Jeffery Onions QC and Mr. Philip Roberts (instructed by Messrs Nicholson Graham & Jones) for the First to Third and Fifth Defendants Hearing date : 4th March 2003 ____________________
The writer then explained the basis for the representative nature of the proceedings by reference to the Memorandum and Articles of both BPI and PPL, the agreement of 11th March 2002 and the letter of 21st August 2002 which I have already quoted. The writer concluded:
In that context there is no specific allegation of issue to the public with the labels or other marks referred to in s.105 CDPA. If an implication to that effect is not enough then the allegation could be simply introduced by amendment.
The remaining paragraphs contain the usual allegations to justify the grant of injunctions and the award of damages, including additional damages under s.97(2) CDPA.
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.