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
#
Trademarking
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

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

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​