NBA Properties Inc v Pizza Texa Bulls Inc
[2023] EWHC 3040 (Ch)
Enreach UK Limited & Anor v Inreach Group Limited
13 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1303 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies fought over trademarks. One company tried to use human rights laws to win, arguing a UK law unfairly impacted their business. The judge disagreed, saying their argument was weak and unlikely to succeed on appeal, so refused permission to appeal.
Key Facts
- •Consequentials hearing following judgment in Enreach UK Limited and Another v Inreach Group Limited [2022] EWHC 2867 (Ch).
- •Claimants applied for permission to appeal.
- •Dispute concerned trademarks and related intellectual property, engaging human rights and trademark law.
- •Claimants argued the 2007 Order should be disapplied under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to a breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights 1953 (A1P1).
- •Four detailed grounds of appeal were presented.
Legal Principles
Test for permission to appeal: real prospect of success or other compelling reason (CPR rule 52.6(1)).
CPR rule 52.6(1)
Application of the Trade Marks (Relative Grounds) Order 2007 and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Trade Marks (Relative Grounds) Order 2007; Human Rights Act 1998, section 6
Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights 1953 (A1P1): right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights 1953
Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998: victim status.
Human Rights Act 1998, section 7
Outcomes
Claimants' application for permission to appeal refused.
Court found no real prospect of success on any ground of appeal. The Claimants' arguments were deemed counterintuitive and lacked merit. No compelling reason for the appeal to be heard was identified.