Case No. EWHC-3296-(IPEC)

12. Despite this being a one-day IPEC trial, there were multiple issues between the parties. The issues (often raising further sub-issues) were as follows: a. Was Equisafety’s “Mercury” mark invalid because it was devoid of any distinctive character, contrary to s.3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? b. Was Equisafety’s “Mercury” mark invalid because it was descriptive, contrary to s.3(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? c. Was Equisafety’s “Mercury” mark invalid because the word had become customary, contrary to s.3(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? d. Was Equisafety’s “Mercury” mark invalid because it was registered in bad faith, contrary to s.3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? e. Did Battle’s actions constitute an infringement of the Mercury trade mark within the meaning of s.10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? f. Did Battle’s actions constitute an infringement of the Mercury trade mark within the meaning of s.10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? g. Did Battle’s actions constitute an infringement of the Mercury trade mark within the meaning of s.10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? h. Does Battle have a defence to the infringement claims by reason of s.11(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994? i. Did Battle’s actions constitute passing off? j. Is Mr Dewey liable as a joint tortfeasor for the actions of Battle?