Breaking news: Vodkat appeal dismissed
In a super judgment in January, noted by the IPKat here, Mr Justice Arnold (Chancery Division, England and Wales) held in Diageo v Intercontinental Brands that the sale of a product under the name VODKAT was a form of "extended passing off" which makers of genuine vodka were entitled to prevent. This morning the Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Rix and Patten and Mr Justice Peter Smith) dismissed the appeal.Intercontinental Brands had argued that only products which have a cachet should be protectable and that vodka, being a generic term, did not possess such a cachet. In its decision -- largely given by Patten LJ with a little augmentation from Rix LJ -- the Court reaffirmed that cachet is not a legal requirement and therefore dismissed the appeal, refusing permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The injunction prohibiting Intercontinental Brands from continuing to sell its VODKAT non-vodka product will not come into force until such time as any application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal has been dealt with.
The judgment (77 paragraphs) is not yet on BAILII, but you can read it in full here.
The injunction prohibiting Intercontinental Brands from continuing to sell its VODKAT non-vodka product will not come into force until such time as any application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal has been dealt with.
The judgment (77 paragraphs) is not yet on BAILII, but you can read it in full here.
STOP PRESS: the judgment is now available on BAILII, here.
