Ex parte UNIC Centre Sarl, R v Harrow Crown Court

Date

15 December 1999

Legislation

Trade Marks Act 1994, s. 92

Keywords

counterfeiting; trade marks; counterfeit goods

Counsel

Unknown

Solicitors

South 7 Co., Grout

Judge

Newman J

Court

High Court of Justice (Divisional Court)

Reported

[2000] 1 WLR 2112

Summary

This was in relation to s.92 TMA '94 offence where the defendant had received Levi jeans from UNIC a French wholesalers. UNIC sought judicial review of a forfeiture order. UNIC claimed that the proceedings were civil and therefore came within the meaning of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 which implemented the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968. This would mean that the Magistrates Court should have taken judicial notice of French judgements where UNIC had been successful in defending trade mark actions.

Forfeiture under s.97 does not require there to be a conviction or even a prosecution and if it was being decided under domestic law the proceedings would be categorised as civil.

Decision

Therefore the Convention applies and the matter must go back to the Crown Court for it to consider the effect of the French judgements on the issues the court must determine.