The issues
26. That left the following issues: (1)Whether Nomination’s consent to the marketing of its base bracelets constituted consent to the marketing of the base links individually, such that s.12(1) of the 1994 Act/art.7(1) of the Trade Mark Directive was engaged. (2)If so, whether there existed legitimate reasons for Nomination to oppose further commercialisation of individual base links by JSC, pursuant to s.12(2)/art.7(2). The reasons advanced were: (a)Nomination’s retailers were not entitled to sell base links either singly or as a base bracelet without a Nomination decorated or charm link. (b)Nomination sold its products in high quality packaging, whereas JSC marketed the Nomination base links in low quality blister packs or plastic bags. (c)The packaging in which Nomination sold its products was accompanied by a written guarantee stamped at the point of sale. Purchasers of Nomination base links from JSC did not benefit from the guarantee. (d)JSC had repackaged some of the base links without identifying who had done the repackaging. (e)The repackaging used by JSC placed the condition of the Nomination links at risk. (3)Whether JSC had used the Nomination sign in relation to its own links. (4)Whether JSC had represented to the public that its own links had been made by Nomination or were authorised by, or otherwise connected in the course of trade with Nomination. (5)Whether Nomination had suffered damage as a consequence of JSC’s misrepresentation.