Category: European

El Dakkak v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects: ECJ 4 May 2017

Controls of Cash Entering or Leaving The European Union – Article 3 – Natural Person Entering or Leaving The European Union – Obligation To Declare

Judges:

President of Chamber R Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur)

Citations:

C-17/16, [2017] EUECJ C-17/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:341, [2017] WLR(D) 303, [2017] 4 WLR 161

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Customs and Excise

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584308

Enercon v EUIPO – Gamesa Eolica (Degrade De Verts) (Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property : Trade Marks – Judgment): ECFI 3 May 2017

EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU trade mark consisting of blended shades of green – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

T-36/16, [2017] EUECJ T-36/16, ECLI:EU:T:2017:295

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584309

Efler and Others v Commission: ECFI 10 May 2017

(Judgment) Institutional law – European citizens’ initiative – Transatlantic trade and investment partnership – Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement – Manifest defect of Commission powers – Proposal for a legal act for the application of the Treaties – Article 11 (1) 4, TEU – Article 2 (1) and Article 4 (2) (b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 – Equality of treatment

Citations:

T-754/14, [2017] EUECJ T-754/14, ECLI:EU:T:2017:323

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

European

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.584307

Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v Cadbury Uk Ltd: CA 17 May 2017

Distinctive Character through Use not established

Nestle had sought to register as a trade mark, a three dimensional representation of their four fingered Kit Kat chocolate biscuit. Cadbury objected, and the hearing officer rejected the claim saying that the mark had not acquired a distinctive character within the Directive. The question of what was required to establish distinctive character had been referred to the ECJ, and answered. On return to the High Court, the rejection of the claim to distinctiveness was confirmed.
Held: The appeal failed. When a putative mark did not of itself have distinctiveness, the test for acquisition of distinctive character was now resolved. The court must be shown that a signicant section of the class of consumers who might rely on it would associate it with the product,though that may also be created by association with additional marks. The hearing officer had been entitled to conclude that the survey presented did not show that a distinctiveness of its own had been generated.

Judges:

Sir Geoffrey Vos Ch, Kitchin, Floyd LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 358, [2017] WLR(D) 331

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95/EC 3(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ChD (1) – Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v Cadbury Uk Ltd ChD 17-Jan-2014
The court was asked ‘In what circumstances can a trader secure a perpetual monopoly in the shape of a product by registering it as a trade mark? ‘
Held: the hearing officer was incorrect to find that the Trade Mark was inherently distinctive . .
At ECJ – Societe Des Produits Nestle v Cadbury UK Ltd ECJ 16-Sep-2015
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Trade marks – Directive 2008/95/EC – Article 3(3) – Concept of ‘distinctive character acquired through use’ – Three-dimensional mark – Kit Kat four finger . .
Appeal from – Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v Cadbury UK Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2016
The parties disputed the registration as a trade mark of three dimensional signs representing specific shapes of chocolate biscuit products.
Held: The objection by Cadbury’s succeeded. . .
At ChD (2) – Societe Des Produits Nestle Sa v Cadbury UK Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2016
The parties disputed the registration as a trade mark of three dimensional signs representing specific shapes of chocolate biscuit products.
Held: The objection by Cadbury’s succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583969

Glaxo Wellcome Uk Ltd (T/A Allen and Hanburys) and Another v Sandoz Ltd: CA 10 May 2017

Challenge to validity of trade mark, and, specifically, whether it is invalid on the ground that the subject matter of the registration is not clear or precise and is not such that it will be perceived unambiguously and uniformly and so contravenes Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the EU trade mark (the ‘EUTMR’).

Judges:

Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor, Floyd, Hitchin LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 335

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583653

Amirteymour v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: CA 10 May 2017

This appeal is concerned with the extent to which an individual appealing to the First-tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) against a decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a derivative residence card under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (‘the EEA Regulations’) is entitled to introduce a distinct human rights claim for leave to remain in the United Kingdom in that appeal.

Judges:

Beatson, Ryder SPT, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 353

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Immigration, Human Rights, European

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.583646

Secretary of State for Health and Others v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others: CA 22 Oct 2013

The French company defendants had been ordered to disclose documents which they said might expose them to criminal prosecution in France. They now appealed.
Held: The court was not obliged to make use of the Council Regulation. Orders for discovery of a document in this court (or for inspection of a document already disclosed) are procedural in nature and the law governing them is the lex fori, ie the law of England and Wales. The fact that a party objects to disclosure or inspection on the ground that to comply with such an order would put the party at risk of prosecution under a foreign law provides no defence to the making of the order. The English court retains jurisdiction under its local law to make such an order although it has a discretion whether to do so in the particular circumstances. The English court is entitled to take into account the risk of prosecution. In the two cases under consideration the judges who made the orders requiring disclosure had done so having found that a prosecution was highly unlikely.

Judges:

Laws, Rimder, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2013] EWCA Civ 1234, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 175, [2014] UKCLR 263, [2014] 1 WLR 4383, [2013] WLR(D) 401

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, Civil Procedure Rules 18 31

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 19-Feb-2015
The claimant said that interest rate manipulation by the defendant bank had caused it losses in interest rate derivatives and SWAP agreements. In the course of that the claimants sought disclosure of internal documents. The defendants resisted . .
See Also – Secretary of State for Health and Others v Servier Laboratories Ltd and Others ChD 31-Jul-2014
The claimant sought damages, alleging that the defendants had breached competition law in the arrangements for sales of drugs for the treatment of heart disease. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, European

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.516955