'8 New Square successfully parlays its renowned IP expertise into success in the IT sector.'
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2009
'outstanding IP chambers'
Legal 500 2008
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
'clerking team that exhibits 'perfect communication''
Legal 500 2008
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
Gary Fearns t/a Autopaint International -v- Anglo-Dutch Paint and Chemical Company Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 99
Case Summary | Judgment | 19 February 2008
Gary Fearns, who sold car paint mainly through franchises, brought a claim for passing off and trade mark infringement due to the fact that Anglo-Dutch, Fearns paint supplier, had started selling the paint directly to his franchisees causing Fearns to lose the franchises. Anglo-Dutch successfully argued that Fearns had given consent for it to sell the paint to the franchisees because Fearns could not afford to supply it himself. The Judge held that although Anglo-Dutch had been given permission its actions had gone outside of the permission and so it was liable for passing off and trade mark infringement. However the Judge held that the unlawful conduct of Anglo-Dutch which had been outside the scope of the permission was not the cause of Fearns losing the franchises. Fearns appealed both the finding of permission and claimed that the Judge had erred in deciding the issues in relation to causation as they should have been decided at an inquiry as to damages. The Court of Appeal held, after the January 2008 appeal, that the Judge had not erred in finding that Fearns had given permission but that the Judge should not have made a decision about causation without there being a full investigation into the extent of the breaches. Therefore Fearns was still entitled to bring evidence at an inquiry to show that the loss of franchises was due to Anglo-Dutch's infringements. Tom Moody Stuart represented Anglo-Dutch.

