Archive for the ‘Commercial Litigation’ Category

Seriously! Whatever defamation is, it is not trivial

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

In the High Court recently, the Telegraph Media Group Limited successfully defended a claim of defamation made by Dr Sarah Thornton, the author of Seven Days in the Art World. The Telegraph successfully argued that the words complained of in its review of the book were not capable of being defamatory. 

The judge recognised that any definition of “defamatory” must incorporate some qualification or threshold of seriousness, so as to exclude trivial claims. He preferred the following definition: 

“the publication of which he complains may be defamatory of him because it substantially affects in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards him, or has a tendency so to do”.

This interpretation provides defendants with another weapon in their armoury. Plus in an increasingly pro-publisher environment, coupled with the prospect of claimants not being able to recover success fees and ATE insurance premiums from defendants, it may make potential claimants think twice before commencing an action.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Consent under a Co-existence Agreement is a Bar to Opposition

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

The High Court has upheld a decision that consent given under a co-existence agreement to the registration of a trade mark for certain goods was a bar to opposition on relative grounds, citing section 5(5) of the Trade Marks Act.

Omega Engineering argued that Omega SA had no right to oppose its application to register OMEGA in respect of certain goods since it had expressly agreed not to do so under a co-existence agreement between the two parties. Omega SA argued, amongst other things, that the co-existence agreement was irrelevant to an objection made on relative grounds. Mr Justice Arnold disagreed stating that it would be unjust if a party who had consented to the registration of a trade mark could successfully oppose the application to register it.

This has to be the right decision otherwise the usefulness of co-existence agreements would be severely threatened.

Sara McNeill

Posted by Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Election halts defamation success fee reforms

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

In March this year, Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced that there would be a 90% reduction in the recoverability of success fees in relation to defamation claims. The plans were also in line with the recommendations laid out by Lord Justice Jackson in his report published back in January. 

Publishers welcomed the move but the oncoming election has led to the reforms being derailed. A number of MPs have also openly opposed the reforms because the proposals would not adequately protect the “little guy” who sues the publisher. Does this mean these same MPs disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of the Jackson report? It is only a matter of time before defendants are given greater protection against liability to pay success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums in defamation cases, and publishers will feel that not passing this legislation is an opportunity missed.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)