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.
 EWHC 1619 (Ch)
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 97(2), Competition Act 1988 2
England and Wales
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
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.243052