Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
- Litigation / Dispute Resolution (47)
- Company/Commercial (15)
- Pharma/Biotech (13)
- Information Technology (10)
- Corporate (8)
- Real Estate (8)
- Construction (6)
- Banking / Finance (5)
- Employment (5)
- Funds (5)
- Media/Entertainment/Sport (5)
- Pensions (5)
- Telecoms (5)
- Commodities (4)
- Competition/EU (4)
- Healthcare (3)
- Planning (3)
- PPP/PFI/Commercial projects (3)
- Regulatory and compliance (3)
- Tax (3)
- Crime (2)
- Environment (2)
- Personal tax / Trusts (2)
- Private Client (2)
- Private Equity (2)
- Public Sector/Local Authority (2)
- Business Tax (1)
- Energy (1)
- In-House (1)
- Insolvency & restructuring (1)
- Insurance/reinsurance (1)
Sort By: Newest first | Oldest first
Parallel imports: when it is permissible to rebrand goods to the trademark used in the importing EU member state?
The Court of Appeal has returned its judgment in parallel imports case Speciality European Pharma v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals.
Arnold J refuses to strike out Warner-Lambert's claim: construction of Swiss form claims is an issue suitable for the Supreme Court
Arnold J has handed down a second decision in the dispute between Warner-Lambert and Actavis.
In his annual review of the year’s patent cases Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co’s Head of IP, Gordon Harris, delivers his verdict on the work of the IP courts in 2014.
G-Star Raw v Rhodi and others — useful guidance on how to assess UK unregistered design right infringement
G-Star Raw v Rhodi & Ors concerned the design of jeans. G-Star brought the action for infringement of design right in its ARC pant against Rhodi – the owner of the “Voi” brand of jeans.
Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co secures a High Court win over design rights for worldwide denim specialist G-Star Raw.
Warner-Lambert refused interim relief based on Swiss form claim: no serious issue to be tried regarding carved-out indication
The English Patents Court has refused an application by Warner-Lambert Company (WL) for interim relief, mandatory in nature, regarding conditions to be attached to the launch of generic pregabalin by Actavis.
Paying for delay and patent settlement arrangements — the European Commission (at last) publishes the Lundbeck decision
In 2013 the European Commission announced that it had fined H Lundbeck A/S in respect of infringements of Art 101 of the TFEU and the EEA Agreement. It has finally set out the basis for the infringements.
A reminder to all brand owners when creating brand names to give careful consideration to ensuring they are original...
Court of Appeal confirms no English celebrity image right but Topshop’s Rihanna T-shirt was passing off
The Court of Appeal has delivered its decision in the litigation between Rihanna and Topshop, upholding the trial judge’s finding that Topshop’s unauthorised use of Rihanna’s image on a T-shirt was passing off.
Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK and Another is worthy of comment for the number of evidential issues that the judgment addressed.
Birss J rules on product by process claim construction, extension of scope, added matter and obviousness in Hospira v Genentech.
How can a company prove that its designer came up with a print independently?
Exotic trademarks have always been difficult to get on the register.
The Court of Appeal has handed down a further significant judgment in the patent dispute between British Telecommunications and ASSIA.
Bot has proposed that the Court of Justice should dismiss both of Spain’s applications for the annulment of EU regulations relating to the Unitary Patent package.
The claimant, IPC Media, is the publisher of the Ideal Home magazine. The defendant, Media 10, runs the Ideal Home Show.
The Legal Group of the Preparatory Committee has completed its examination of the 16th draft of the UPC Rules of Procedure.
IP lawyers from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co have secured an important Court of Appeal victory for US client ASSIA against BT.
In Teva v Leo, Mr Justice Birss was asked to decide whether two patents relating to a combined formulation for treatment of psoriasis were valid and infringed.
At the third outing at the Court of Appeal, Marks and Spencer (M&S) was successful for a third time in overturning a decision of Mr Justice Arnold.