Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 APRIL 2014

Cosmetic Warriors Ltd And Lush Ltd v Amazon.co.uk Ltd And Amazon EU Sarl

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Contributor
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP is a leader in the European IP market, having driven innovation in the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Carpmaels & Ransford LLP

The High Court of England & Wales has found that Amazon’s use of LUSH as a Google AdWord infringed the registered LUSH trade mark where the sponsored advertisement triggered by the AdWord did not enable consumers to determine easily that the products being offered were not actual LUSH products.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Roger Lush
Roger Lush

The High Court of England & Wales has found that Amazon's use of LUSH as a Google AdWord infringed the registered LUSH trade mark where the sponsored advertisement triggered by the AdWord did not enable consumers to determine easily that the products being offered were not actual LUSH products.

The Court also found that Amazon infringed the registered LUSH trade mark when the search engine and "Related Searches" functions on Amazon's website automatically suggested various "lush" products where, again, consumers could not determine easily that the products being offered were not actual LUSH products.

Summary of the facts and reasoning

Cosmetic Warriors Ltd is the proprietor of Community Trade Mark No. 1388313 LUSH. Lush Ltd is the exclusive licensee of that trade mark (together referred to as "Lush").

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

The Manchester Creative Industries AI Summit – The Government's Opportunity To Set Out A Policy Direction On Copyright And AI?

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has convened the Creative Industries AI Summit in Manchester to bring together rightsholders, regulators, platforms and AI labs to align on a common approach to copyright-protected works in AI development. The Summit will unveil the 'Manchester Principles', a framework establishing minimum conditions for using human creative work to train generative AI models.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Lewis Silkin
Lewis Silkin
Article

UPC CoA Confirms Jurisdiction Over Pending European Patent Application

The UPC Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Unified Patent Court can exercise jurisdiction over European patent applications, provided they are granted before the defendant files their statement of defence. This landmark decision means patent holders may now be locked into the UPC system even before their patents are officially granted, fundamentally changing the strategic timing considerations for opting out of UPC jurisdiction.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Podcast

Carpmaels In Conversation: Ep. 42 – Feeding The Machine: Copyright And AI Training (Podcast)

In the latest episode of Carpmaels in Conversation, Lara Elder and Harry Shaw discuss one of the most closely watched cases in intellectual property law: Getty Images v Stability AI. Using the case as a starting point, they examine a central question for modern copyright law: whether AI models trained on datasets that include copyright works should give rise to liability for infringement.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Article

Advocate General in C 456/24 Halozyme: The MA has the final say on what constitutes an “active ingredient”

Following widespread litigation over Halozyme's SPC families for Herceptin Hylecta and MabThera, Europe's highest court received a critical referral addressing whether recombinant human hyaluronidase can be considered an "active ingredient" despite its classification as an excipient in marketing authorisation documents. Advocate General Emiliou has now published a significant legal opinion proposing that substances expressly designated as excipients cannot be regarded as active ingredients for SPC purposes.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Article

[UPCKat] When Is Imminent Infringement More Likely Than Not? Decision Of The UPC Court Of Appeal In Merz v Viatris

The UPC Court of Appeal recently overturned a first instance decision in the first case of SPC enforcement at the UPC, granting Merz a preliminary injunction against Viatris. The decision clarifies when a patentee must act to avoid undue delay in seeking provisional measures, emphasizing that applicants need sufficient certainty of imminent infringement before filing. The Court conducted a detailed analysis of French regulatory procedures and market practices to determine whether Merz had acted with reasona
FranceIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Article

Innovation In FemTech: Apps And Digital Innovations

The women's health technology sector has evolved from simple digital diaries into sophisticated tracking systems that capture menstrual cycles, fertility patterns, and menopause symptoms at unprecedented scale. As these innovations transition from niche tools to established digital health fixtures, securing comprehensive intellectual property protection becomes essential for transforming technological breakthroughs into defensible commercial assets.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
Carpmaels & Ransford LLP