Unilin Beheer Bv v Berry Floor Nv and others: CA 25 Apr 2007

The patent at issue was retrospectively amended by the EPO to limit its scope to valid claims, after the English court had given judgment in favour of the patentee. The ‘vexation’ associated with the pursuit of two proceedings challenging the validity of the patent was an inescapable feature of the statutory scheme which conferred concurrent jurisdiction on questions of validity on both the English court and the EPO.
Jacob LJ said: ‘Of course in principle the preferred option is to stay UK proceedings if there are corresponding EPO proceedings. And it may in some circumstances be the case that an interim injunction could serve to hold the fort whilst these proceed. But all must depend on the circumstances and particularly the timing. Normally, although a stay is in principle the preferred course, it would be wrong to prevent the patentee from enforcing his patent here if the EPO opposition will not be concluded reasonably soon – as all too often it sadly is not. Take this case: the action started here in May 2002 and was finally over by November 2005. The EPO proceedings are still running and could be still doing so at the end of next year. Business needs to know where it stands – and a patentee is entitled to enforce his patent without undergoing the risks inherent on the cross-undertaking in damages – especially if the period involved could involve years.’

Mummery, Arden, Jacob LJJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 364, [2007] FSR 25, [2008] 1 All ER 156, [2007] Bus LR 1140, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 599
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoUnilin Beheer Bv v Berry Floor Nv, Information Management Consultancy Design Limited (T/A Responsive Designs), B and Q Plc CA 30-Jul-2004
Patents – infringement – validity . .
See AlsoUnilin Beheer Bv v Berry Floor Nv and others (No. 2) CA 3-Nov-2005
. .

Cited by:
CitedVirgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .
CitedVirgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd SC 3-Jul-2013
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd sought to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 pounds for the infringement of a European Patent which did not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Damages

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.251455

Unilin Beheer Bv v Berry Floor Nv and others (No. 2): CA 3 Nov 2005

Mummery, Jacob, Neuberger LJJ
[2005] EWCA Civ 1292
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoUnilin Beheer Bv v Berry Floor Nv, Information Management Consultancy Design Limited (T/A Responsive Designs), B and Q Plc CA 30-Jul-2004
Patents – infringement – validity . .

Cited by:
See AlsoUnilin Beheer Bv v Berry Floor Nv and others CA 25-Apr-2007
The patent at issue was retrospectively amended by the EPO to limit its scope to valid claims, after the English court had given judgment in favour of the patentee. The ‘vexation’ associated with the pursuit of two proceedings challenging the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.231674

Sky and Others (Community Trade Mark – Judgment): ECJ 29 Jan 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Approximation of laws – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Articles 7 and 51 – First Directive 89/104/EEC – Articles 3 and 13 – Identification of the goods or services covered by the registration – Failure to comply with the requirements of clarity and precision – Bad faith of the applicant – No intention to use the trade mark for the goods or services covered by the registration – Total or partial invalidity of the trade mark – National legislation requiring the applicant to state that he or she intends to use the trade mark applied for

M Vilaras P
C-371/18, [2020] EUECJ C-371/18, [2020] WLR(D) 54, [2020] Bus LR 1550, ECLI:EU:C:2020:45, [2019] EUECJ C-371/18_O
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.654734

Registrar of Trade Marks v W and G Du Cros Ltd: HL 1 Aug 1913

Where respondents sought to register the letters ‘W and G’ as a trade mark, held (1) that the registrar was right in deciding whether the mark was registrable when application for registration was made to him under section 12 of the Trade Marks Act 1905; (2) that the mark was not distinctive in the sense of sub-section 5 of section 9 of that Act.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal (1912, 1 Ch. 644) reversed.

Earl Loreburn and Lords Shaw, Mersey, and Parker
[1913] UKHL 588, 51 SLR 588
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.632756

The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (T/A The London Taxi Company) v Frazer-Nash Research Ltd and Another: CA 1 Nov 2017

Is the shape of a London taxi a valid registered trade mark?
Held: ‘I would dismiss the appeal against the judge’s conclusion that the LTC trade marks were invalid for lack of distinctive character. I would also dismiss the appeal in relation to passing off.’

Kitchin, Floyd LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 1729
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.598474

For Tune v EUIPO: ECJ 15 Jun 2017

ECJ (Appeal – EU Trade Mark : Order) Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fortune’ – Partial rejection of the application for registration

ECLI:EU:C:2017:478, [2017] EUECJ C-23/17 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.588270

Sovena Portugal – Consumer Goods v EUIPO – Mueloliva (Fontoliva): ECFI 13 Dec 2016

Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Word mark FONTOLIVA – Earlier national word mark FUENOLIVA – Relative ground for refusal – Validity of the registration of the earlier mark – Submission of new facts and evidence before the General Court – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Power to alter – Article 8(1)(b), Article 42(2) and (3) and Articles 65 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:726, [2016] EUECJ T-24/16
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572609

Puro Italian Style v EUIPO (Smartline): ECFI 13 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – European trade mark – European Union figurative smartline trade mark application – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) of

CLI:EU:T:2016:725, [2016] EUECJ T-744/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572605

Novomatic v EUIPO: ECJ 6 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – EU trade mark – Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HOT JOKER’ – Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘joker +’ – Refusal of registration

ECLI:EU:C:2016:931, [2016] EUECJ C-342/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572601

Redpur v EUIPO – Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – European trade mark – Opposition proceedings – European trademark application Redpur – Earlier European figurative mark redwell INFRAROT HEIZUNGEN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (B) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:745, [2016] EUECJ T-227/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572606

Pal-Bullermann v EUIPO – Symaga (Pal): ECFI 14 Dec 2016

Judgment – EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark PAL – Partial revocation – Genuine use of the mark – Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Form differing from the registered mark – Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

T-397/15, [2016] EUECJ T-397/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572602

Scorpio Poland v EUIPO: ECFI 14 Dec 2016

ECJ Trade mark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for the mark of the European figurative Union YO! – Earlier national word mark YO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:732, [2016] EUECJ T-745/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572608

Novartis AG v EUIPO (Representation D’Une Courbe Verte): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – EU trade mark – Applications for EU figurative trade marks representing a grey curve and representing a green curve – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctive character – Simplicity of the sign – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:749, [2016] EUECJ T-678/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572600

Keil v EUIPO – Naturafit Diatetische Lebensmittelproduktion (Basencitrate): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – European Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – European Community word mark BasenCitrate – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2016/T33015.html, [2016] EUECJ T-330/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572590

Lansforsakringar AB v Matek A/S: ECJ 21 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Mark of the European Union – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 9 (1) (b) – Article 15 (1) – Article 51 (1) (a) – Scope Granted to the holder – Five-year period subsequent to registration

C-654/15, [2016] EUECJ C-654/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572591

Market Watch Franchise and Consulting v EUIPO: ECJ 1 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the word mark MITOCHRON – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(1)(b)

ECLI:EU:C:2016:924, [2016] EUECJ C-402/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572594

Mondelez UK Holdings and Services v EUIPO – Societe Des Produits Nestle (Forme D’Une Tablette De Chocolat): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Three-dimensional mark – Shape of a chocolate bar – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:735, [2016] EUECJ T-112/13
Bailii
Regulation No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572597

Guiral Broto v EUIPO – Gastro and Soul (Cafe Del Sol) T-549/15: ECFI 13 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU figurative mark CAFE DEL SOL – Earlier national figurative mark Cafe del Sol – Failure to submit evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings – Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Rights of the defence

ECLI:EU:T:2016:719, [2016] EUECJ T-549/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572583

Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (Start Up Initiative): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Mark of the European Union – Trade mark application for the figurative European Union START UP INITIATIVE – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009 – Obligation to state reasons – Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:747, [2016] EUECJ T-529/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572588

Guiral Broto v EUIPO – Gastro and Soul (Cafe Del Sol) T-548/15: ECFI 13 Dec 2016

Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Cafe del Sol – Earlier national figurative mark Cafe del Sol – Failure to submit evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings – Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Rights of the defence

ECLI:EU:T:2016:720, [2016] EUECJ T-548/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572582

Apax Partners v EUIPO – Apax Partners Midmarket (Apax): ECFI 13 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark APAX – Earlier international word mark APAX – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the goods and services – Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:724, [2016] EUECJ T-58/16
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572564

Aldi GmbH and Co KG v EUIPO – Cantina Tollo (Aldiano): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark ALDIANO – Earlier EU word mark ALDI – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

ECLI:EU:T:2016:741, [2016] EUECJ T-391/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572561

Aldi GmbH and Co KG v EUIPO – Miquel Alimentacio Grup (Gourmet): ECFI 15 Dec 2016

ECJ Judgment – Marks of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for trademarks of the European figurative Union Gourmet – Earlier national word and figurative marks GOURMET and Gourmet – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:746, [2016] EUECJ T-212/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572562

Teva UK Ltd v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh and Co Kg: CA 16 Dec 2016

The Court considered the rights or otherwise of appealing to the Court of Appeal in Patents cases.

Kitchin, Floyd LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1296
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 52.3(6)
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572422

Universidad Internacional De La Rioja v EUIPO – Universidad De La Rioja (Universidad Internacional De La Rioja Unir): ECFI 1 Dec 2016

EU (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for the figurative mark EU UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA unite – Brand of the prior oral EU UNIRIOJA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8 , paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:698, [2016] EUECJ T-561/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572327

Klement v EUIPO: ECJ 1 Dec 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Brand EU – Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a furnace – Article 51, paragraph 1 a) – Application for revocation of a trademark of European Union – Article 15, paragraph 1, second subparagraph a) – Genuine use of the mark – Rejection of the application for invalidity

ECLI:EU:C:2016:918, [2016] EUECJ C-642/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572322

Ek/Servicegroup v EUIPO (Ferli): ECFI 1 Dec 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – trade mark of verbal EU ferli – clarity requirement – Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rights of the defense – Article 75, second sentence of Regulation No – 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:699, [2016] EUECJ T-775/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572319

Tuum v EUIPO – Thun (Tuum): ECFI 6 Dec 2016

EU (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – trade mark of the figurative EU TUUM – Earlier national figurative mark THUN – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC ) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:708, [2016] EUECJ T-635/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572325

The Art Company B and S v EUIPO – Manifatture Daddato and Laurora (Shop Art): ECFI 6 Dec 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU figurative mark SHOP ART – Earlier EU figurative mark art – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:704, [2016] EUECJ T-735/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572316

European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EUIPO: ECJ 24 Nov 2016

ECJ (Order) Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Public service contracts – Software development and maintenance services – Misinterpretation of the arguments and distortion of the evidence submitted by the other party to the proceedings before the General Court

C-379/16, [2016] EUECJ C-379/16 – CO
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572313

Groupe Go Sport v EUIPO – Design Go (Go Sport): ECFI 6 Dec 2016

ECJ (Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU word mark GO SPORT – Earlier national word marks GO – Partial refusal of registration by the Opposition Division – Late filing of the statement of grounds of appeal – Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal – Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

ECLI:EU:T:2016:707, [2016] EUECJ T-703/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572321

Wyko Group Plc and Others v Cooper Roller Bearings Co Ltd: ChD 4 Dec 1995

A court may not grant a declaratory relief anticipating facts which were not yet in being. There must be in existence of a real question in issue between the parties as to the legal consequences of existing facts. Declaratory relief could not be obtained against a person who had not asserted any right: a party should be allowed to choose his own proceedings at a time and manner of his own choosing and should not be brought into court by the opposing party to resist a claim for a declaration of non-liability.

Ferris J
Times 04-Dec-1995, [1996] FSR 126
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedL’Oreal (UK) Limited and Another v Johnson and Johnson and Another ChD 7-Mar-2000
The claimant appealed against an order striking out their threat action for trade mark infringement, in respect of the words ‘No Tears’ when used for children’s shampoo.
Held: The court had to consider both the letter and the surrounding . .
CitedPoint Solutions Ltd v Focus Business Solutions Ltd and Another ChD 16-Dec-2005
It was claimed that the defendant’s computer software infringed the copyright in software owned by the claimant. A declaration was sought beacause of allegations that assertions about infringement had been made to third parties.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.90637

Darroch and Another v Football Association Premier League Ltd: CA 2 Dec 2016

The Claimants had had their appeals against conviction for breaches of the 1988 Act set aside, but now appealed against refusal of their costs of defending the action.

Sir Brian Leveson, P, Hallett, Burnett LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1220
Bailii
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 297
England and Wales

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.572000

Nvidia Corporation and Others v Hardware Labs Performance Systems Inc: ChD 6 Dec 2016

Trade mark action in which the claimants seek injunctive and damages relief in respect of what is said to be a groundless threat of proceedings for infringement of a trade mark, and also claim a declaration of non-infringement.

Mann J
[2016] EWHC 3135 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571995

Fiesta Hotels and Resorts v EUIPO -Residencial Palladium (Palladium Palace Ibiza Resort and Spa): ECFI 30 Nov 2016

ECJ Judgment – Mark of the European Union – Invalidity proceedings – the figurative mark EU PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT and SPA – Earlier national business name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM – Relative ground for refusal – Use in the course of trade a sign which the scope is not only local -Article 8, paragraph 4, and Article 53, paragraph 1 c) of Regulation (EC) no 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:691, [2016] EUECJ T-217/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571975

Pi-Design v EUIPO – Societe Des Produits Nestle (Presso): ECFI 29 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – International registration – Request for territorial extension of protection – Word mark PRESSO – Earlier national word mark PRESSO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1, sub b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 ‘

ECLI:EU:T:2016:680, [2016] EUECJ T-545/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571977

K and K Group v EUIPO – Pret a Manger (Europe): ECFI 30 Nov 2016

ECJ Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark Pret A Diner – Earlier EU figurative mark PRET A MANGER – Earlier national word mark PRET – Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Unfair advantage taken of the distinctiveness or the repute of the earlier marks – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009

T-2/16, [2016] EUECJ T-2/16
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571976

Chic Investments v EUIPO (Esmokingworld): ECFI 29 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Mark of the European Union – Application for figurative mark of the European Union eSMOKING WORLD – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7, paragraph 1 b) and c) of Regulation (EC ) No 207/2009 – Obligation to state reasons

ECLI:EU:T:2016:679, [2016] EUECJ T-617/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571972

Vince v EUIPO (Electric Highway): ECFI 17 Nov 2016

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark ELECTRIC HIGHWAY – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

T-315/15, [2016] EUECJ T-315/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571887

Senapro v Euipo – Paltentaler Splitt and Marmorwerke (Dolokorn): ECFI 24 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Brand of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for word mark EU Dolokorn – Brand of the prior oral EU DOLOPUR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1, sub b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:676, [2016] EUECJ T-769/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571883

CG v EUIPO – Perry Ellis International Group (P Pro Player): ECFI 24 Nov 2016

(Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark P PRO PLAYER – Earlier EU and national figurative marks P and P PROTECTIVE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

ECLI:EU:T:2016:677, [2016] EUECJ T-349/15
Bailii
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571870

Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland and Others: ECJ 15 Mar 2012

ECJ Copyright and related rights – Directive 2006/115/EC – Articles 8 and 10 – Concepts of ‘user’ and ‘communication to the public’ – Installation in hotel bedrooms of televisions and/or radios to which the hotelier distributes a broadcast signal

[2012] EUECJ C-162/10, [2012] Bus LR D113, ECLI:EU:C:2012:141
Bailii
Directive 2006/115/EC
European
Citing:
OpinionPhonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland and Others ECJ 29-Jun-2011
ECJ Copyright and related rights – Directives 92/100/EEC and 2006/115/EC – Rights of performers and phonogram producers – Article 8(2) – Communication to the public – Indirect communication to the public of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571859

Soulier and Doke v Premier ministre: ECJ 16 Nov 2016

EJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual and industrial property rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Copyright and related rights – Articles 2 and 3 – Rights of reproduction and communication to the public – Scope – ‘Out-of-print’ books which are not or no longer published – National legislation giving a collecting society rights to exploit out-of-print books for commercial purposes – Legal presumption of the authors’ consent – Lack of a mechanism ensuring authors are actually and individually informed

[2016] EUECJ C-301/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:878
Bailii
Directive 2001/29/EC
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571776

Astex Therapeutics Ltd v Astrazeneca Ab: ChD 8 Nov 2016

The parties had agreed to work tgether in the development of new drugs, but came to dispute whether certain projects were subject to the agreement. The claimant sought details of the defendant’s internal documents justifying that conclusion. The defendant then refused access to certain documents asserting legal professional privlege. The claimants now sought an order requiring the defendants to give further details to support the claimed assertion of privilege,
Held: Exceptionally this was a case when further evidence abiut the claim should be provided.

Marsh CM
[2016] EWHC 2759 (Ch)
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 31
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedThree Rivers District Council and others v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 5) CA 3-Apr-2003
Documents had been prepared by the respondent to support a request for legal advice in anticipation of the Bingham enquiry into the collapse of BCCI.
Held: Legal advice privilege attached to the communications between a client and the . .
CitedWest London Pipeline and Storage Ltd and Another v Total UK Ltd and others Comc 22-Jul-2008
The court was asked whether it could go behind an affidavit sworn by a person claiming litigation privilege, and, if so, in what circumstances and by what means.
Held: The burden of proof is on the party claiming privilege to establish it; An . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 26 January 2022; Ref: scu.571444