Upholding the trader’s claim, the Court noted that the woman had rightly conceded that her trading style and logo infringed the trade marks. The conceptual, visual and aural similarities between them created a likelihood of customer confusion. Given that the trade marks were enforceable nationwide, it was irrelevant that she and the trader operated in different parts of the country.

When faced with the trader’s complaint, the woman had changed the name of her business so as to replace the word ‘angel’ with ‘archangel’. The Court, however, ruled that that change did not go far enough to dispel the likelihood of customer confusion and the new name also amounted to a trade mark infringement.

Entering summary judgment in the trader’s favour, the Court ruled that the woman had no reasonably arguable defence to the claim. The Court heard further argument as to the terms of its order. Issues concerning the financial or other relief to which the trader was entitled would be considered at another hearing, if not agreed.