Jadebay Ltd & Ors v Clarke-Coles Ltd (t/a Feel Good UK)

Decision date: 13 June 2017

Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 1400 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This case concerned trade mark infringement under s.10(2) TMA 1994 and passing off where the defendant listed its own flagpoles against the claimants’ Amazon listings displaying "by DesignElements". The court held the defendant’s use of "DesignElements" on those listings was use in the course of trade and was aurally/conceptually identical and visually similar to the registered mark, producing a likelihood of confusion for post‑registration sales (s.10(2)). The s.10(3) claim failed for lack of demonstrated reputation, but the court found passing off for pre‑registration use and awarded damages (£25,359.75) and an injunction.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

The dispositive reasoning is that an Amazon listing’s "by [brand]" designation can amount to use of a sign in the course of trade for s.10(2) purposes; where a sign is aurally and conceptually identical to the registered trade mark and visually similar, that can support a finding of a likelihood of confusion as to identical goods. Reputation for s.10(3) requires evidence of recognition by a significant part of the relevant public; absent such evidence, the s.10(3) claim fails. For the period before registration, the court applied ordinary passing off principles and found misrepresentation and damage.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judgment commented that an Amazon listing’s "by [brand]" descriptor is derived from the manufacturer/brand field and is where a consumer would expect to find manufacturer information (not merely a shop name). It also noted that absence of reported consumer complaints over time is a relevant but not necessarily decisive factor when assessing confusion.