Tag: European

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

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

Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd: QBD 6 Apr 2017

The Court was asked whether section 32(4) of the Act, which provides in certain circumstances for an automatic stay of proceedings in respect of journalistic materials (amongst others), is incompatible with EU law.
Held: The sub section forms an important part of the protection of the rights of freedom of expression. A greater need is to be shown to allow prior restraint of a journalists publicatuon, and therefore there was nothing in section 32(4) which failed to give effect to the Directive. The claim was to be stayed.

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 695 (QB), [2017] WLR(D) 251

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 1988 32(4), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Directive 95/46/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information, European, Media

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581697