Legitimate to improve your position in litigation by obtaining a new trademark registration – confirmation by UK Court of Appeal

No items found.
​
February 17, 2012

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it can be acceptable to improve your position in litigation by obtaining a new trademark registration in the period between the start of infringing acts and service of the claim.

As reported in an earlier Newsflash here, the Claimant 32Red (provider of online gaming services) is proprietor of two registered Community trademarks (CTMs): “32Red” in plain letters and in logo format. It sued William Hill Online for infringing its trademarks when the defendant started using 32Vegas, 32vegas.com and 32v on a gambling website. During the few months between issue and service of its claim form 32Red registered the number “32” on its own as a UK trademark.

In the first instance proceedings, the Judge held that 32Red’s CTMs were both valid and infringed. However, he held that the UK registration for 32 on its own, although valid, was not infringed.

In the appeal, William Hill Online attacked the decision from many angles but was unsuccessful on every count.

More interestingly, 32Red cross-appealed the finding that the mark 32 was not infringed. At first instance, the judge had held that the registration was too recent for the mark to have acquired sufficient reputation through use and that without sufficient use, there could be no confusion. That was of course incorrect and the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding that after the judge had found that 32 was the dominant feature of the CTMs and that there was inherent confusion and infringement of those marks ”he had no proper basis for saying there was no infringement of the 32 number mark.”

It is hard to tell, whether registration of the 32 number mark strengthened the claimant’s position, because the “32Red” marks were found to be infringed. However, an opportunity to register a different version of the mark could strengthen the position in litigation and its approval in principle by the Court of Appeal, is good news for claimants. For a UK registration, it is necessary to have a legitimate “intent to use” the mark and in this case the registration survived a challenge by the defendant on that ground. “Intent to use” is not required for a CTM but it usually takes several months longer for the CTM registration process to be completed.

By Alice Mastrovito and Emma Wilkins

Recent Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.