Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd. & Anor

[2006] EWCA Civ 847

Summary

The supplied judgment records only the formal disposition. The appeal concerning the 452 mark was dismissed, while the cross-appeal concerning the device marks was allowed. The text supplied does not contain the court’s reasons or any articulated legal test.

Factual background

The claimant appealed from the Chancery Division before Mr Justice Rimer. The respondents cross-appealed. The judgment identifies the 452 mark and the device marks as the subject matter of the respective appeals. The Court of Appeal records the outcome but does not set out the underlying issues or reasoning.

Held

Lord Justice Mummery stated that the appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed for the reasons given in draft judgments to be made available to counsel. Those draft judgments are not included in the supplied text.

  1. Appeal: dismissed in relation to the 452 mark.
  2. Cross-appeal: allowed in relation to the device marks.

The formal order records that the appeal was refused and the cross-appeal allowed.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

Available to signed-in members.

Appellate history

  • Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2006] EWCA Civ 847 . The appeal was dismissed on the 452 mark and the cross-appeal was allowed on the device marks.
  • Chancery Division: Appeal from a decision of Mr Justice Rimer. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment.

Appeal route

  1. Appealed fromNot stated in the judgmentThis appealappeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
  2. This judgment [2006] EWCA Civ 847 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Key cases cited

Available to signed-in members.

Cases citing this case

Available to signed-in members.