Category: Intellectual Property

Solvay (Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters): ECJ 29 Mar 2012

ECJ (Opinion) Judicial co-operation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Action for infringement of a European patent – Special and exclusive jurisdiction – Article 6(1) – More than one defendant – Article 22(4) – Validity of patent called into question – Article 31 – Provisional or protective measures

Judges:

Cruz Villallon AG

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-616/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

See Also – Solvay (Judicial Cooperation In Civil Matters) ECJ 12-Jul-2012
ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments – Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Action for infringement of a European patent – Special and exclusive jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463193

Geistbeck and Another v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs Gmbh: ECJ 29 Mar 2012

ECJ Opinion – Intellectual and industrial property – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – Community plant variety rights – Obligation to pay reasonable compensation to the holder of such a right and to compensate the holder for any further damage resulting from the act in question – Criteria for determining reasonable compensation – Infringement – Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 – Farmers’ privilege – Costs of monitoring and supervision

Judges:

Jaaskinen AG

Citations:

C-509/10, [2012] EUECJ C-509/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, Regulation (EC) No 1768/95

Cited by:

Opinion – Geistbeck and Another v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs Gmbh ECJ 5-Jul-2012
ECJ Intellectual and industrial property – Community plant variety rights – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – ‘Farmer’s privilege’ – Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ – Compensation for damage suffered – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463190

Form Only (Pig Description) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte): IPO 26 Nov 2002

PO Trade Marks – Ex Parte Decisions

Judges:

Mr Pike

Citations:

[2002] UKIntelP o48202

Links:

PO, IPO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Pig Description (Telecom Plus) (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) IPO 4-Apr-2003
PO Trade Marks – Appeals to the appointed person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.455364

Tabo (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 27 Oct 1999

PO Trade Marks – Appeals to the Appointed Person Decisions – Application No: 1316378 – Opposition
IPO Opposition.

Judges:

Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC

Citations:

Opp 32964, 1316378, [1999] UKIntelP o37599

Links:

PO, PO, IPO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Tabo (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 5-Mar-1999
cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.453632

Pig Description (Telecom Plus) (Trade Mark: Appointed Person): IPO 4 Apr 2003

PO Trade Marks – Appeals to the appointed person

Judges:

Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC

Citations:

[2003] UKIntelP o18703

Links:

PO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Form Only (Pig Description) (Trade Mark: Ex Parte) IPO 26-Nov-2002
PO Trade Marks – Ex Parte Decisions . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.455539

Tabo (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 5 Mar 1999

cw Inter Partes Decisions – Trade Marks – Opposition

Judges:

Mr M Foley

Citations:

OPP 32964, 1316378, [1999] UKIntelP o07499

Links:

PO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Tabo (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 27-Oct-1999
PO Trade Marks – Appeals to the Appointed Person Decisions – Application No: 1316378 – Opposition
IPO Opposition. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.453452

Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Limited Lectra Systemes SA: CA 18 Dec 1996

The plaintiffs claimed damages for patent infringement. Some of the lost profits for which the plaintiff company claimed damages were suffered by subsidiary companies in which it held all the shares.
Held: When a shareholder has a cause of action but his company has none, he can recover damages measured by the reduction in value of his shareholding; but that the plaintiff must prove the amount of his own loss and that it cannot be assumed that this is the same as the loss suffered by the company. There is no rule of law limiting damages which can be awarded for patent infringement to monopoly profits only. Infringement of a patent is a statutory tort; and the damages recoverable should be governed by the same rules as with many or most other torts. The victim should be restored to the position he would have been in if no wrong had been done, and the victim can recover a loss which was (i) foreseeable, (ii) caused by the wrong, and (iii) not excluded from recovery by public or social policy. The requirement of causation is sometimes confused with foreseeability, which is remoteness. The two are different.

Judges:

Staughton LJ

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1245, [1997] RPC 443

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal From – Gerber Garment Technology Inc v Lectra Systems Ltd ChD 30-Jan-1995
A prior art recital in a Patent application is strong but rebuttable evidence of the state of knowledge. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Coflexip Sacoflexip Stena Offshore Limited v Stolt Offshore Limitedstolt Offshore Limited Stolt Offshore A/S CA 13-Mar-2003
In proceedings already heard the defendant had been found liable for patent infringement, and damages remained to be assessed. They claimed for loss of profits and royalties, and for damages through dilution of the market. The claimants said that to . .
Cited – London General Holdings Ltd and others v USP Plc and Another CA 22-Jul-2005
Copyright was claimed in a draft legal agreement. Infringement was established, but the court was asked to look at the assessment of damages.
Held: ‘what is the basis upon which damages for breach of copyright are awarded? The question cannot . .
Cited – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Cited – Devenish Nutrition Ltd and others v Sanofi-Aventis SA (France) and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the losses it had suffered as a result of price fixing by the defendant companies in the vitamin market. The European Commission had already fined the defendant for its involvement.
Held: In an action for breach . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Damages

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141113

Forbo Financial Services v EUIPO – Windmoller (Canoleum) (Judgment): ECFI 16 Dec 2020

European Union trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the European Union word mark Canoleum – Earlier international word mark MARMOLEUM – Relative ground for refusal – Late filing of the statement setting out the grounds for the appeal – Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal – Request for restitutio in integrum – Sudden illness of the lawyer representing the applicant – Duty of vigilance – Evidentiary value of the solemn declaration made by the lawyer

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2020:606, T-3/20, [2020] EUECJ T-3/20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.660717

Almea v EUIPO – Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea) (EU Trade Mark – Judgment): ECFI 9 Dec 2020

EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Almea – Earlier national word mark MEA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

T-190/20, [2020] EUECJ T-190/20, ECLI:EU:T:2020:597

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.660690

Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing Aisiyou Clothing (Representation D’Une Griffure) (EU Trade Mark – Judgment): ECFI 2 Dec 2020

EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for an EU figurative mark representing a claw-like scratch – Earlier EU and UK figurative marks representing claw-like scratches – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2020:579, T-35/20, [2020] EUECJ T-35/20

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.660740

Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc (Patent): IPEC 23 Mar 2015

The decision concerns whether the invention set out in patent application GB1004051.7 relates to excluded matter. The invention relates generally to process plants and, more particularly, to the scaling of composite shapes in an editor for graphical representations of components and various activities associated with plant configuration, control, maintenance, and simulation. The Hearing Officer found the invention excluded as a program for a computer and the presentation of information.

Citations:

[2015] UKIntelP o11815

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.545462

Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc (Patent): IPO 25 Jul 2013

IPO The invention relates to a method of upgrading software in a process control system. It is often necessary as with all software installations to deploy new versions of the software which contain bug fixes and patches. Upgrades are usually accompanied by release notes which provide guidance to the plant engineer on how to install the upgrade as well as information relating to how this will affect the various components in the system. However, it is an arduous and time consuming task for the engineer to work through lengthy release notes and to install patches which are often poorly documented. Furthermore, it is common for companies to operate multiple process control systems on geographically separate sites each having different device configurations which means that software maintenance is a complex task which may require the plant engineer to travel long distances between sites. The invention provides a new arrangement for generating customised release notes in which knowledgebase articles (i.e. user-submitted articles and comments regarding the practical usage of a process control system, including techniques, known issues, workarounds, and the like) are combined with general release notes relating to the specific upgrade and are then filtered based on the actual configuration of the process system to present the plant engineer with the most relevant information relating to the upgrade and any potential effects it may have on his system in order for him to make a reasoned decision as to whether or not to deploy the upgrade. Upgrades can be made remotely by the plant engineer without taking the plant offline to ensure ‘continuous’ operation and avoid loss of revenue.
The Hearing Officer considered the four-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan in the light of the Symbian judgment, and found the contribution to relate to a computer program as such, and having found no technical contribution refused the application under Section 18(3).

Judges:

Mr P Slater

Citations:

[2013] UKIntelP o29613, O/296/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.517157

Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc (Patent): IPO 21 Dec 2012

IPO The application relates to a method of operating a process plant by responding to information presented in reports. The reports are produced automatically by extracting historical process control data from databases and synchronising it with other data. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the decision in ATandT Knowledge Ventures LP and CVON and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as no more than a program for a computer and a method for doing business as such.

Citations:

[2012] UKIntelP o51012

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.467728

Adinsight Limited (Patent): IPO 25 May 2012

IPO The invention relates to a method for allocating telephone numbers to users of an online web page. A company can collect a large amount of information from users of their websites such as web pages viewed, search terms used, and this data can be analysed to determine products the customers may be interested in and increase sales generated through the website. When a customer uses the website but completes a purchase offline, e.g. by telephone, it is possible to associate online information relating to the customer and an offline purchase by assigning a different telephone number to each user of the website. Recycling of telephone numbers is necessary to reduce the number of telephone numbers required and therefore reduce costs. Previously the telephone numbers have been recycled by associating a telephone number with a customer for a predetermined time. The hearing officer found that there was an inventive step over the prior art but that the invention was excluded as a computer program and a method of doing business.

Judges:

Mr H Jones

Citations:

[2012] UKIntelP o21212, GB1005619.0

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462523

Kevin Hickey (Patent): IPO 7 Jun 2012

The invention concerned a device for showing correct ladder angle, comprising a weighted indicator connected via a hoop to a semi-circular rail, positioned near the top of a symbol ‘A’. The indicator moved along the rail as the ladder incline changed. Correct ladder angle was shown by alignment with a marking within a limb of the ‘A’, and the width of the limbs of the ‘A’ indicated the limits of acceptable ladder angle.
The Hearing Officer considered that the skilled person would have an engineering background and his common general knowledge would include knowledge of a variety of fixed and moveable couplings. The Hearing Officer then considered the prior art ladder inclination indicators, which showed weighted indicators freely mounted on a pivot, interacting with symbols or scales of some sort to indicate either the correct or a range of acceptable ladder angles. He found that the skilled person would not be exercising any inventive ingenuity in replacing the pivot mechanism with a hoop or rail for allowing the weighted indicator freely to indicate angle. Nor would that person be exercising any inventiveness in noting the teaching of the prior art and using some form of symbol to mark the position of the weighted indicator when at the optimum angle and at the limits of acceptable or safe angles. The application was refused

Citations:

[2012] UKIntelP o23112

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462528

Liffe Administration and Management v Pinkava and Another: CA 15 Mar 2007

The employee had patented in the US a trading system he invented whilst employed by the defendant, who now sought ownership. He appealed a finding that the inventions had been made during the normal course of his employment. The employment contract provided: ‘All trade secrets, inventions, written documents, and other confidential information developed or created by or with your assistance during your employment in the course of carrying out your duties are LIFFE’s property and such rights or interest in any such property or information that you may have are prescribed by the law.’
Held: The employee’s appeal failed. The job description included the development of credits derivatives products, and the work had become part of his normal duties. For section 39(1)(a) to apply not only must the invention be made in the course of the employee’s normal or specifically assigned duties but also that ‘the circumstances in either case were such that an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of his duties.’ Since the relevant part of the 1977 Act extended an employee’s rights it was not necessary further to interpret it to preserve common law rights.
Jacob LJ said: ‘Since one cannot go by the contract alone I do not think one can be too precise about how the duty is to be ascertained. The contract and the general nature of the job both call for examination. It is not possible to be too analytical about this. In the end one is asking whether the employee is employed to try to innovate and, if he is, what general sort of areas his innovation duties cover.’

Judges:

Chancellor, Longmore LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 217, [2007] Bus LR 1369, [2007] 4 All ER 981, [2007] BusLR 1369, [2007] ICR 1489

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 39

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Liffe Administration and Management v Pinkava and Another PatC 24-Mar-2006
The claimant sought the rights to a patent acquired by the defendant in respect of trading systems invented by him, saying that this had been created as part of his work for them. The employment contract included a clause assigning such rights to . .
Cited – British Reinforced Concrete Engineering Company Ltd v Lind ChD 1917
An assistant engineer created an invention from a visit to a colliery made in the course of his employment. He applied for and was granted a patent. The employer claimed to be entitled to the benefit of it. The employee resisted saying that he was . .
Cited – Greater Glasgow Health Board’s Application 1996
An Opthalmic Registrar employed by the Board invented an optical spacing device for use with an indirect ophthalmoscope. The Hearing Officer decided that the invention belonged to the employer.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The court . .
Approved – Harris’ Patent 1985
Harris was the manager of the Wey valve department of his employer. In August 1978 he was told he would be made redundant, and left in December. In the meantime he devised an improvement to the Wey valve and applied for a patent in January 1979. The . .
Cited – Patchett v Stirling Engineering Co Ltd 1955
The court considered the position at common law of an employee claiming to patent his invention: ‘It is elementary that, where the employee in the course of his employment (ie in his employer’s time and with his materials) makes an invention which . .
Cited – Re Charles Selz’s Application 1953
The applicant was general manager of a factory of a lamp-shade maker. At a packaging exhibition he visited for his employer, he was shown some ‘spray plastic’ packaging. It occurred to him that spray plastic was capable of uses other than packaging, . .
Cited – Armstrong Whitworth Rolls Ltd v Mustard 1971
An employee’s duties and roll may evolve over time. . .
Cited – Carmichael and Lesse v National Power Plc CA 29-Jan-1997
Casual workers employed under ‘nil hours’ relationship still had a contract of employment and the appropriate and associated rights. A court was fully able to determine the terms of the contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Employment

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.250476

Microsoft Corporation v Ling and others: ChD 3 Jul 2006

The claimant sought damages against the respondent for various infringements in sales of unlicensed products, and also additional damages. The defendant argued that Microsoft’s licensing arrangements acted anti-competively.
Held: ‘the defendants would not at trial be able to defend liability for issuing instruments of deception. ‘ The application for summary judgment for additional damages succeeded.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1619 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 97(2), Competition Act 1988 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – British Telecommunications Plc; Virgin Enterprises Ltd; J Sainsbury Plc; Marks and Spencer Plc and Ladbroke Group Plc v One In a Million Ltd and others CA 23-Jul-1998
Registration of a distinctive Internet domain name using registered trade marks and company names could be an infringement of a registered Trade Mark, and also passing off. It was proper to grant quia timet injunctions where necessary to stop . .
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Centrafarm Bv v American Home Products Corporation ECJ 10-Oct-1978
It is clear from article 36 of the EEC treaty, in particular its second sentence, as well as from the context, that whilst the treaty does not affect the existence of rights recognized by the laws of a member state in matters of industrial and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Damages

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.243052

Pioneer Electronics Capital Inc; Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc (Together Trading As Discovision Associates) v Warner Music Manufacturing Europe Gmbh and Warner Music UK Limited: CA 28 Nov 1996

The product of a process remained such despite application of a further process; There had been no loss of identity.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1059

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 60(1)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.140926

Husqvarna (Judgment): ECJ 17 Dec 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – European Union trade marks – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 51 (1) (a) – Article 55 (1) – Forfeiture of rights attached to the Union trade mark – Trade mark Union which has not been the subject of genuine use for an uninterrupted period of five years – End of the end of the five-year period – Assessment date

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:1044, C-607/19, [2020] EUECJ C-607/19, [2021] EUECJ C-607/19_CO

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.660732

Gugler France v Gugler and EUIPO (EU Trade Mark – Judgment): ECJ 23 Apr 2020

Appeal – EU trade mark – Figurative mark containing the word element GUGLER – Application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Gugler France SA – Economic link between the party seeking a declaration of invalidity and the proprietor of the contested mark – No likelihood of confusion

Citations:

C-736/18, [2020] EUECJ C-736/18P, ECLI:EU:C:2020:308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.660123

Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd v Apple Inc: PatC 9 Jul 2012

The court found that Samsung had not, in its tablet computers, infringed the registered design belonging to Apple, and granted a declaration accordingly.

Judges:

Birss J QC

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat), [2013] ECDR 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

At PatC – Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc CA 18-Oct-2012
In a registered design claim, the line drawings included one or two small features (an opening catch and a rim around the edge), and the natural implication was that no other ornamentation was intended, a view supported by the fact that the . .
Cited – PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Ltd SC 9-Mar-2016
Overall Impression of Design is a Judgment
The respondent had alleged infringement of its registered design in the ‘Trunki’, a ride-on children’s suitcase. At first instance, the judge had held that the surface decorations were to be ignored. On appeal it had been held that the judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.462429

Interkobo v OHMI – Xxxlutz Marken (My Baby): ECFI 27 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark my baby – Earlier national and international word marks MYBABY and earlier national figurative mark mybaby – Relative ground for refusal – Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings – Legitimate expectation – Rules 19(3), 20(1) and 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

Judges:

O Czucz P

Citations:

T-523/10, [2012] EUECJ T-523/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 2868/95

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461902

I Marchi Italiani And Basile v OHMI – Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952): ECFI 28 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 – Earlier national word mark BASILE – Relative ground for refusal – Limitation in consequence of acquiescence – Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 54(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Judges:

H Kanninen P

Citations:

T-133/09, [2012] EUECJ T-133/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461901

Constellation Brands v OHIM (Cook’s): ECFI 28 Jun 2012

ECJ Community trade mark – Word mark COOK’S – Failure to apply for renewal of the mark – Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

H Kanninen P

Citations:

T-314/10, [2012] EUECJ T-314/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461898

Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 20 Jun 2012

Application for permission to to adduce witness evidence at trial from witnesses gathered from two pilot surveys.

Judges:

Arnold J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1722 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 29-Apr-2010
Response to request for clarification of reference to the ECJ. . .
ECJ Opinion – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 24-Mar-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Trade marks – Keyword advertising corresponding to the trade mark of a competitor of the advertiser – Trade marks with a reputation – Blurring – Tarnishment – Free-riding – Directive 89/104 – . .
ECJ – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 22-Sep-2011
ECJ Trade marks – Keyword advertising on the internet – Selection by the advertiser of a keyword corresponding to a competitor’s trade mark with a reputation – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 5(1)(a) and (2) – . .

Cited by:

See Also – Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc and Another CA 20-Nov-2012
The court gave guidance on the use of surveys in trials for passing off and trade mark infringement.
Lewison LJ reviewed the practice of conducting interviews and surveys in passing off cases: ‘The upshot of this review is that courts have . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 21-Feb-2013
‘The Claimants (‘Interflora’) seek the permission of the Court to adduce in evidence the witness statements of 13 witnesses at the trial of this action scheduled for mid April 2013. Interflora do not accept that they need the Court’s permission, but . .
See also – Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 22-Mar-2013
Interflora had been refused permision to adduce survey evidence, but now appealed against refusal of permission to adduce evidence of confusion by witness statements.
Held: Appeal allowed. Reasons to follow. . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 5-Apr-2013
The court gave its reasons for allowing the claimant to bring additional witness evidence as to confusion as opposed to survey evidence. . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 15-Apr-2013
The defendant objected to the introduction of certain evidence by the claimant under a Civil Evidence Act notice. Claimants seeking to adduce academic journals as expert evidence . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 21-May-2013
Mark use in search engine was infringing use
The claimant mark owner alleged that the defendant, in paying a search engine to use the claimants mark as a search keyword was infringing its rights. The defendant argued that the use of the same sign in different contexts could amount to a . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 12-Jun-2013
The court considered the form of the injunction requested to give effect to the earlier full judgment in the case brought, requiring the defendant to discontinue any use of the terms complained of as infringing the claimant’s registered marks as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Evidence

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461912

Xxxlutz Marken v OHIM: ECJ 28 Jun 2012

ECJ Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Figurative mark Linea Natura Natur hat immer Stil – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark natura selection – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion

Citations:

C-306/11, [2012] EUECJ C-306/11 – P

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 40/94

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461904

Basile And I Marchi Italiani v OHMI – Osra (B. Antonio Basile 1952): ECFI 28 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community figurative mark B. Antonio Basile 1952 – Earlier national word mark BASILE – Relative ground for refusal – Foreclosure by tolerance – Article 53, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 [now Article 54, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009] – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 of Regulation No 40/94 [now Article 8, paragraph 1 of Regulation No 207/2009] (French Text)

Citations:

T-134/09, [2012] EUECJ T-134/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461893

Usedsoft Gmbh v Oracle International Corp: ECJ 24 Apr 2012

ECJ Opinion – Legal protection of computer programs – Directive 2009/24/EC – Marketing of used software downloaded from the internet – Exhaustion of the distribution right

Judges:

Bot AG

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-128/11, C-128/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2009/24/EC 4(2) 5(1)

Cited by:

Opinion – Usedsoft Gmbh v Oracle International Corp ECJ 3-Jul-2012
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Legal protection of computer programs – Marketing of used licences for computer programs downloaded from the internet – Directive 2009/24/EC – Articles 4(2) and 5(1) – Exhaustion of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461892

Hearst Communications v OHMI – Vida Estetica (Cosmobelleza): ECFI 27 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark COSMOBELLEZA – Earlier national and international word and figurative marks COSMO, COSMOPOLITAN, COSMOTEST, COSMOPOLITAN TELEVISION and THE COSMOPOLITAN SHOW – Non-registered marks and trade names COSMO and COSMOPOLITAN – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – No similarity between the marks – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Forwood J

Citations:

T-344/09, [2012] EUECJ T-344/09

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461737

Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another: ECJ 21 Jun 2012

ECJ (Opinion) Directive 96/9/EC – Legal protection of databases – Concepts of extraction and re-utilisation – Location of the act of re-utilisation

Judges:

Cruz Villalon AG

Citations:

C-173/11, [2012] EUECJ C-173/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 96/9/EC

Citing:

At first instance – Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimants complained of alleged breach of database rights claimed by the claimants in their lists of football match schedules. . .
Reference – Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another CA 29-Mar-2011
Matter referred to ECJ. The claimants sougt to restraiin alleged breach of database rights by the defendants in lists of Football League fixtures. . .
See Also – Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another ChD 8-May-2012
. .

Cited by:

Opinion – Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Sportradar Gmbh and Another ECJ 18-Oct-2012
ECJ Directive 96/9/EC – Legal protection of databases – Article 7 – Sui generis right – Database relating to football league matches in progress – Concept of re-utilisation – Localisation of the act of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.461736

Kavaklidere-Europe v OHMI – Yakult Honsha (Yakult): ECFI 21 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark Yakut – Earlier Community figurative mark Yakult – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-276/09, [2012] EUECJ T-276/09

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.460893

Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (Forme D’Une Bouteille Foncee) (EU Trade Mark – Judgment): ECFI 25 Nov 2020

European Union trade mark – International registration designating the European Union – Three-dimensional sign – Shape of a dark bottle – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EU ) 2017/1001

Citations:

T-862/19, [2020] EUECJ T-862/19, ECLI:EU:T:2020:561

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.660646

Ultrasun v EUIPO (Ultrasun) (European Trade Mark – Order): ECFI 20 Oct 2020

European Union trade mark – Application for an ultrasun figurative European Union trade mark – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive nature – Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Appeal manifestly devoid of any basis in law

Citations:

T-805/19, [2020] EUECJ T-805/19_CO, ECLI:EU:T:2020:507

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.660627

Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v Pms International Group Plc: IPEC 17 Sep 2019

The defendant sought summary judgment which would have the effect of striking out part of the claim. No facts were in dispute – the application raised solely a point of European Union design law.

Judges:

Judge Hacon

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.649067

H.Eich v OHMI – Arav (H.Eich): ECFI 19 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark H.EICH – Earlier national figurative mark H SILVIAN HEACH – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1 b) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009

Judges:

Forwood P

Citations:

T-557/10, [2012] EUECJ T-557/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460562

Kraft Foods Schweiz v OHMI – Compania Nacional De Chocolates (Corona) =: ECFI 20 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark CORONA – Earlier national word marks KARUNA and KARUNA – Relative grounds for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009

Citations:

T-357/10, [2012] EUECJ T-357/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460563

Seikoh Giken v OHMI – Seiko Holdings (Sg Seikoh Giken): ECFI 13 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration – Application for territorial extension of the protection – Figurative mark SG SEIKOH GIKEN – Earlier Community word mark SEIKO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Kanninen P

Citations:

T-519/10, [2012] EUECJ T-519/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460426

Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHMI – Garmo (Hellim): ECFI 13 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark HELLIM – Earlier Community collective word mark HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Right to be heard – Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

Judges:

Truchot P

Citations:

T-534/10, [2012] EUECJ T-534/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460425

Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v Ohmi – Promotora Imperial (Ihotel): ECFI 13 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark iHotel – Earlier Community figurative mark i-hotel – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8, paragraph 1, sub b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-277/11, [2012] EUECJ T-277/11

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460418

Stichting Regionaal Opleidingencentrum Van Amsterdam v OHMI – Investimust (College): ECFI 12 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word mark COLLEGE – Absolute ground for refusal – Absence of descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Pelikanova P

Citations:

T-165/11, [2012] EUECJ T-165/11, [2011] EUECJ T-165/11

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460429

Seven Towns v OHIM (Representation De Sept Carres En Differentes Couleurs): ECFI 14 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Application for Community mark representing seven squares of different colours – Sign of which a Community trade mark may consist – Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Azizi P

Citations:

T-293/10, [2012] EUECJ T-293/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 4

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460427

Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHMI – Garmo (Gazi Hellim): ECFI 13 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark GAZI Hellim – Community collective mark earlier word halloumi – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of signs – Article 8, paragraph 1, sub b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Truchot P

Citations:

T-535/10, [2012] EUECJ T-535/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460424

Hartmann v OHMI – Molnlycke Health Care (Mesilette): ECFI 13 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark MESILETTE – Earlier national and international word marks MEDINETTE – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Kanninen R

Citations:

T-342/10, [2012] EUECJ T-342/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460417

Xxxlutz Marken v OHMI – Meyer Manufacturing (Circon): ECFI 13 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark CIRCON – Earlier Community word mark Circulon – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of signs – Distinctive high – Reputation – Article 8, paragraph a, b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Procedure before the Board of Appeal – Defence rights – Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009

Judges:

Czucz P

Citations:

T-542/10, [2012] EUECJ T-542/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460432

Sud-Chemie v OHMI – Byk-Cera (Ceratix): ECFI 13 Jun 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark CERATIX – Earlier national word mark CERATOFIX – Genuine use of earlier mark – Article 42, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Truchot P

Citations:

T-312/11, [2012] EUECJ T-312/11

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460430

Nike International v OHMI – Intermar Simanto Nahmias (Jumpman): ECFI 25 May 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark JUMPMAN – Earlier national word mark JUMP – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Judges:

Azizi R

Citations:

T-233/10, [2012] EUECJ T-233/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 8(1)(b)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460210

TMS Trademark-Schutzrechtsverwertungsgesellschaft v Ohmi – Comercial Jacinto Parera (Mad): ECFI 24 May 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – revocation – Community figurative mark MAD – Genuine use of the mark – Article 51, paragraph 1, sub a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character – Article 15, paragraph 1, sub a) of Regulation No 207/2009

Judges:

Truchot P

Citations:

T-152/11, [2012] EUECJ T-152/11

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460211

Grupo Osborne v OHMI – Industria Licorera Quezalteca (Toro Xl): ECFI 24 May 2012

ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark TORO XL – Earlier Community figurative mark XL – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8, paragraph 1, sub b) of Regulation No 207/2009 – No risk of confusion

Citations:

T-169/10, [2012] EUECJ T-169/10

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460207

Norton v Nicholls And Others: 21 Apr 1859

A new combination of several old and known designs may constitute a new ‘design,’ capable of being protected under stat. 5 and 6 Vict. e. 100. But such combination must, to be so protected, constitute one design, and not a multiplicity of designs.

Citations:

[1859] EngR 489, (1859) 1 El and El 761, (1859) 120 ER 1095

Links:

Commonlii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.287841

Angiotech Pharmaceuticals and Another v Conor Medsystems Inc: CA 16 Jan 2007

The appellants challenged a finding that their patent for a vascular stent failed for obviousness.
Held: To overcome a judge’s finding in such a case some error of principle had to be shown. No such error was shown and the appeal failed.

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 5, [2007] RPC 20, (2007) 94 BMLR 122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .
Appeal from – Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another PatC 24-Feb-2006
The court found the defendant’s patent invalid for obviousness. . .
Cited – Johns-Manville Corporation’s Patent CA 1967
A patent for a method of producing asbestos cement was challenged for obviousness.
Diplock LJ considered that a development should be treated as obvious if ‘the person versed in the art would assess the likelihood of success as sufficient to . .
Cited – Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Arrow Generics Ltd, Generics (UK) Ltd v Istituto Gentili Spa, Merck and Co Inc PatC 22-Jan-2003
. .
Cited – Istituto Gentili Spa Merck and Co Inc v Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, Arrow Generics Ltd Generics UK Ltd CA 6-Nov-2003
When a party appealed a patent judge’s conclusions as to obviousness of a patent under challenge, that party should put before the court a summary showing succinctly what principles of law the judge had infringed. . .
Cited – Saint-Gobain Pam Sa v Fusion Provida Limited Electrosteel Castings Limited CA 25-Feb-2005
In a challenge to a patent for obviousness: ‘Mere possible inclusion of something within a research programme on the basis you will find out more and something might turn up is not enough. If it were otherwise there would be few inventions which . .
Cited – Haberman and V and A Marketing Limited v Jackel International Limited PatC 15-Jan-1999
The fact that an inventive step was small and simple did not mean it was obvious where substantial other commercial development activity had failed to see the idea. The development was sufficiently inventive to deserve monopoly protection. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and others HL 9-Jul-2008
The respondents had applied for and obtained an order to revoke the appellant’s patent of a stent for obvousness. Though the parties had settled, the public law element required the intervention of the Comptroller General. The House was asked about . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.247933

Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another: CA 2 Feb 2007

The defendant appealed a finding that it had abused its dominant market position in refusing to supply to the claimant a copyright licence for its information on horse racing at a proper or acceptable price. The defendant was said to have a monopoly on the information
Held: The appeal was upheld. ‘unfairness in pricing is to be assessed by reference to the relationship between price and the economic value of the relevant product . . the test is whether the price is excessive because it has no reasonable relation to the economic value of the product supplied. ‘The main aim of Article 82 of the Treaty is the protection of consumers . . not of business competitors . . even if it is the competitors and not the consumers who are alleging abuse of dominant position. No principle of law suggests that differential pricing by a monopoly supplier, even if duplicitously conducted, amounts by itself to an abuse of its market position. ATR did not establish that BHB abused its market dominance by specifying excessive, unfair or discriminatory prices or by unreasonably threatening to terminate the supply of pre-race data to ATR. The the judge erred in holding that the economic value of the pre-race data was its competitive price based on cost +. This method of ascertaining the economic value of this product is too narrow in that it does not take account, or sufficient account, of the value of the pre-race data to ATR and in that it ties the costs allowable in cost+ too closely to the costs of producing the pre-race data.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Sedley LJ, Lloyd LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 38, [2007] UKCLR 309, [2007] BusLR D77

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Competition Act 1998 60, EC Treaty Art 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Attheraces Ltd and Another v British Horse Racing Board and Another ChD 21-Dec-2005
The claimants relayed horse racing events to bookmakers. The respondents collected data about the races and horses. The claimants sought the freedom to use that data, and the defendants asserted a database right to control such use.
Held: BHB . .
See Also – Attheraces Ltd and Another v The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another ChD 15-Jul-2005
. .
Cited – The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd ECJ 9-Nov-2004
bhb_whECJ2004
The claimant sought to prevent re-use by the defendant of information from its horse racing subscription service. They claimed that they had a database right in the information. It cost andpound;4m per year to assemble.
Held: The expression . .
Cited – British Horseracing Board Ltd and Another v William Hill Organization Ltd CA 13-Jul-2005
The Court allowed William Hill’s appeal, holding that BHB had not established that the ECJ had given its earlier ruling on the basis of an erroneous assumption of fact and that the result of applying the ruling was that BHB’s Database did not fall . .
Cited – United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities ECJ 14-Feb-1978
Europa The opportunities for competition under article 86 of the treaty must be considered having regard to the particular features of the product in question and with reference to a clearly defined geographic . .
Cited – Racecourse Association and others v Office of Fair Trading CAT 2-Aug-2005
. .
Cited – Aberdeen Journals Limited v Office of Fair Trading (No 2) CAT 2002
Sir Christopher Bellamy said: ‘. . the question whether a certain pricing practice by a dominant undertaking is to be regarded as abusive for the purposes of Chapter II is a matter to be looked at in the round, taking particularly into account (i) . .
Cited – Oscar Bronner v Mediaprint (Judgment) ECJ 26-Nov-1998
A major newspaper proprietor had refused to allow a small competitor access to its efficient distribution service.
Held: That amounted to an abuse of a dominant position: ‘First, it is apparent that the right to choose one’s trading partners . .
Cited – Sirena SRL v Eda SRL And Others ECJ 18-Feb-1971
ECJ The rights recognized by the legislation of a member state on the subject of industrial and commercial property are not affected, so far as their existence is concerned, by article 85 and 86 of the treaty. . .
Cited – BHB Enterprises Plc v Victor Chandler (International) Ltd ChD 27-May-2005
The claimant created a very substantial computerised database about horses and the racing industry. It licensed the database to users, including some who were able to grant sub-licenses. It sought to rely on the Database Directive to support its . .
Cited – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited and Subsidiaries v Director General of Fair Trading CAT 22-May-2001
Judgment on request for interim relief.
In principle, prices are excessive if they ‘are higher than would be expected in a competitive market’ and ‘there is no effective competitive pressure to bring them down to competitive levels, nor is . .

Cited by:

Cited – Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports ChD 24-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to renew its leases of docking facilities from the landlord defendant. The defendant resisted saying it intended to operate its own business, and the claimant now alleged that the defendant was abusing its dominant position to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Commercial

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.248343

Pareto Trading v EUIPO – Bikor and Bikor Professional Color Cosmetics (Bikor Egyptian Earth) (EU Trade Mark – Judgment): ECFI 16 Dec 2020

EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark BIKOR EGYPTIAN EARTH – Absolute ground for refusal – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2020:630, T-438/18, [2020] EUECJ T-438/18

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.660743

Facegym v EUIPO (Facegym) (EU Trade Mark – Order): ECFI 18 Dec 2020

EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark FACEGYM – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2020:646, T-289/20, [2020] EUECJ T-289/20_CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.660715

Tunein Inc v Warner Music UK Ltd and Another: CA 26 Mar 2021

Citations:

[2021] EWCA Civ 441

Links:

Bailii, Judiciary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Warner Music UK Ltd and Others v Tunein Inc ChD 1-Nov-2019
Copyright owners’ challenge to alleged infringement by internet radio stations. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.660057