I always think of trade marks as intended to be passing off protection with extra statutory muscle.

This is what the uk patent office thinks (there is more about damage to reputation which I am not sure is argued here).

If you use an identical or similar trade mark for identical or similar goods and services to a registered trade mark - you may be infringing the registered mark if your use creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. This includes the case where because of the similarities between the marks the public are led to the mistaken belief that the trade marks, although different, identify the goods or services of one and the same trader.

If your target market (the public needing confusion to be avoided) is non-specialist people and your knock off is pharmaceuticals, I would think packaging would need to be obviously different. If your target market is a bunch of obsessives and your knock off is 5% of the price of the defended item, I would say it is sufficiently clear that the item does not say "fluke" on the front and says "sparkfun" instead.

Not pretending I know about the way the colonies have gone with this law. Vested interests always have a way of lobbying for statutes and establishing precedents. Anyway, I think it is harsh to say it is the damn fault of the importer. This stuff is subtle and confusing. The lawyers who do this stuff are very expensive.

Hawk is absolutely right. This is a case about a contract of guarantee, which is one in the category including disposal of land, equitable interest etc. which requires signed writing. But the singature can be in any valid form. It's England and Wales not British.