• CRIMINAL

ENGLAND AND WALES COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

R v A

Application under s 76(1) for quashing of an acquittal and retrial allowed if there was "new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence".

In the instant case, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed an application by the sCrown Prosecution Service under s 76(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for the quashing of an acquittal and an order for the retrial of the defendant, for rape following his acquittal of that offence in the Crown Court earlier. The Court held that the rule against double jeopardy had been abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in respect of qualifying offences, of which rape was one and therefore, the Court of Appeal had to allow an application under s 76(1) for quashing of an acquittal and retrial if there was "new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence".

• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (EIGHTH CHAMBER)

Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

A 3D mark which consists of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result will not be registrable.

In the present case, OHIM dismissed an appeal from the Grand Board of Appeal in finding that an application for a 3D mark representing a Lego brick was invalid under Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation relating to shape marks. On appeal, Court dismissed the complaint of the applicant and affirmed the decision of OHIM holding that a 3D mark which consists of a shape necessary to obtain a technical result will not be registrable even if the technical result which it achieves could be achieved by other shapes.

ENGLAND AND WALES HIGH COURT (CHANCERY DIVISION) DECISIONS

Crocodile International Private Limited v La Chemise Lacoste

Revocation of registration of trade mark not allowed in case genuine use of trademark in question is shown

In the instant case, an application was filed by the claimant, Crocodile International Private Limited, a company incorporated in Singapore, for summary judgment under Section 46(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act, 1994, revoking the registration in the name of the defendant, La Chemise Lacoste, a company incorporated in France, of the mark CROCODILE in class 25 for 'Shirts but not including sport shirts', on the grounds of non-use. The High Court dismissed the claimant's application for summary judgment on the basis that defendant-Lacoste were making genuine use of their trade mark by including it on the swing tags of their tennis shirts. The fact that the tags were hidden was irrelevant because the customers would need to look at the tags in order to determine the price of the shirts.