- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (51)
- Intellectual Property (45)
- Regulatory and compliance (19)
- Company/Commercial (17)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (17)
- Information Technology (12)
- Competition/EU (11)
- Employment (10)
- Energy (10)
- Environment (10)
- In-House (6)
- Corporate (4)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (4)
- Crime (3)
- Insolvency & restructuring (3)
- Pharma/Biotech (3)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (3)
- Telecoms (3)
- Funds (2)
- Human Rights (2)
- Insurance/reinsurance (2)
- Pensions (2)
- Planning (2)
- Real Estate (2)
- Tax (2)
- Business Tax (1)
- Charities (1)
- Family (1)
- Healthcare (1)
- Personal Injury (1)
- Personal tax / Trusts (1)
- Professional Indemnity/Negligence (1)
- Transport (Including aviation and shipping) (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
Chanel has successfully opposed the sign BOY CAPEL, based on its prior registration of BOY CHANEL, and other developments.
In a summary judgment decision, HHJ Hacon in the IPEC found that the registration by an employee of the defendant of domain names constituted passing off.
The claimant was the proprietor of the mark PUMA used in connection with sportswear. The defendant, a T-shirt design company, was the registered proprietor of the mark PUDEL (‘poodle’ in English), which was registered later.
In C More Entertainment v Sandberg the claimant was a Swedish pay-TV company that broadcasts ice hockey matches on its website, upon payment of a fee.
The sector inquiry will focus on those goods and services in which e-commerce is most widespread.
The regime for determining jurisdiction in cross-border contract disputes has been improved, but it is crucial that contracts contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Looking at barriers to the development of effective cross-border e-commerce in the EU.
Contrasting decisions involving applications for registrations of the respective marks GREEN SMOKE and GREENWORLD are instructive in highlighting registry approaches to the concept of distinctiveness.
The French Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by magazine owners against a decision of the Paris Court of Appeal that it could not claim infringement of marks MATCH and PARIS MATCH by the dating website Match.com.
After the 2013 horsemeat scandal, the ‘nuts for cumin’ affair puts traceability and record-keeping back in the spotlight.
Trademarks: registry review download
A round-up of cases including: Husky CZ sro v OHIM; Red Bull GmbH v OHIM; Environmental Marketing Ltd v OHIM; and Facebook Inc v Collector Consulting.
Mr Justice Birss has refused an application by the defendant in patent proceedings to re-open the trial and to permit it to amend its pleadings to plead new prior art.
A claim cannot be brought if the threat is not “groundless”.
Article 4(2) of the Information Society Directive provides that the exclusive distribution right of a copyright owner shall not be exhausted within the EU, in respect of the original or copies of the work.
IP: designs and ‘complex products’ download
A design applied to or incorporated in a component part of a complex product is considered to be new and to have individual character only if the component part remains visible during normal use.
When logos are created, the artwork is automatically protected by copyright and under English law the designer is the copyright owner even if the work is commissioned.
A recent High Court decision has clarified the different tests for infringement of copyright and UK unregistered design right.
The claimant owned five UK and Community trademarks, all featuring the word ‘supreme’ in respect of animal foodstuffs.
New regulations coming into force on 26 February replace public contracts regulations of 2006.
What a RANDOMS decision download
Nestlé is the registered proprietor of two Irish trademarks, the word mark RANDOMS and the slogan LET YOUR RANDOM SIDE OUT in respect of confectionery.