Tag: Intellectual Property

Watson Laidlaw and Co Ltd v Pott Cassels and Williamson: HL 6 Feb 1914

‘The patentee must prove the loss that he has sustained by unlawful sales, as the natural and direct consequence of the wrong done to him, and the Judge has to determine whether such loss has been proved’- per Lord Kinnear.
Amount of damages awarded by the Second Division of the Court of Session for infringement of a patent sustained (Lord Halsbury dissenting).

Judges:

Earl of Halsbury, Lord Kinnear, Lord Atkinson, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1914] UKHL 238, [1914] SC (HL) 18, 51 SLR 238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.620708

Warwickshire County Council v Matalia: ChD 18 Jul 2017

Application for injunctive relief against the defendant for an allegedly threatened breach of confidence in disclosure of forthcoming exam questions.

Judges:

Simon Barker QC HHJ

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1340 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Education

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620091

Vienna International Hotelmanagement v EUIPO (Vienna House): ECFI 3 Jul 2018

Judgment – Trademark of the European Union – Trademark applications of the European Union verb Vienna House and figurative Vienna House – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7 (1) (b) and (c), of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

Citations:

T-402/17, [2018] EUECJ T-402/17, ECLI:EU:T:2018:401

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620054

Lotte v EUIPO – Nestle Unternehmungen Deutschland (Representation D’Un Koala): ECFI 12 Jul 2018

Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property – Judgment – Trade mark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for a figurative mark of the European Union representing koalas – Earlier three-dimensional national mark KOALA-BAREN Scholler lustige Gebackfiguren – Article 42 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 47 (2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Power of alteration

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:438, T-41/17, [2018] EUECJ T-41/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620030

Mast-Jagermeister v EUIPO: ECJ 5 Jul 2018

Designs – Judgment – Appeal – Community design – Application for registration of designs representing beakers – Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Article 36(1)(c) – Graphic representation – Articles 45 and 46 – Attribution of a date of filing – Conditions – Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 – Article 4(1)(e) and Article 10(1) and (2)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:534, C-217/17, [2018] EUECJ C-217/17P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620033

Link Entertainment v EUIPO – Garcia-Sanjuan Machado (Savory Delicious Artists and Events): ECFI 11 Jul 2018

Judgment – European Union mark – Nullity procedure – European Union figurative mark SAVORY DELICIOUS ARTISTS and EVENTS – Earlier European Verification Mark of the AVORY – Relative ground of refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the services – Article 8 (1) (b) and Article 53 (1) (a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8 (1) (b) and Article 60 (1)) (a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:432, T-694/17, [2018] EUECJ T-694/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620029

Cyprus v EUIPO – Papouis Dairies (Pallas Halloumi): ECFI 13 Jul 2018

EU Trade Mark – Judgment – EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark Pallas Halloumi – Prior United Kingdom word certification mark HALLOUMI – Relative ground for refusal – No 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-825/16, [2018] EUECJ T-825/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:482

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620015

Enoitalia v EUIPO – La Rural Vinedos y Bodegas (Antonio Rubini): ECFI 11 Jul 2018

EU Trade Mark – Judgment – EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark ANTONIO RUBINI – Earlier EU figurative mark RUTINI – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

T-707/16, [2018] EUECJ T-707/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:424

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620017

Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO: ECJ 28 Jun 2018

EU Trade Mark – Order
Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – Word mark bittorrent – Declaration of revocation

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:522, [2018] EUECJ C-118/18P – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619995

Lecouturier and Others v Rey and Others: HL 18 Mar 1910

A law of a foreign country and a sale by a foreign court under that law cannot affect property not within the foreign jurisdiction.
The French monastery of Chartreuse, which manufactured liqueurs of that name by a secret process, was compulsorily dissolved under a French statute and its property confiscated. It had owned trade-marks in France, England, and elsewhere. The Chartreuse monks established a manufacture of liqueurs in Spain employing the old process.
Held that the property-in the English trade-mark was not affected by the French confiscation, and still remained with the Chartreuse monks.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, Atkinson, Collins, and Shaw

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 892, 47 SLR 892

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619782

Unigroup v EUIPO – Pronova Laboratories (Nailicin): ECFI 20 Jun 2018

(Eu Trade Mark – Order) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark nailicin – Earlier Benelux word mark NAILCLIN – Relative ground for refusal – Copy of the certificate of registration of the earlier mark – Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) – Taking into account of a document submitted in conjunction with the notice of opposition – Rule 19(4) Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7(5) of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

Citations:

T-587/17, [2018] EUECJ T-587/17 – CO, ECLI:EU:T:2018:378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.619031

Sicignano v EUIPO (EU Trade Mark): ECFI 26 Jun 2018

Trade mark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for a mark of the figurative European Union GiCapri’ a giacchett’e capri ‘- Former figurative European Union mark CAPRI – 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:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:385, [2018] EUECJ T-619/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.619025

Glaxo Wellcome Uk Ltd (T/A Allen and Hanburys) and Another v Sandoz Ltd and Others: ChD 12 Jun 2018

Application made by the claimants seeking orders concerning the defendants’ disclosure and relating to a notice to admit served by the claimants.

Judges:

Marsh CM

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1626 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618979

Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others: CA 18 Jan 2017

The claimant professor had invented a pump mechanism which came to be used by his employers for the sale of pumps used to manage diabetic testing. He appealed against refusal of statutory compensation.

Judges:

Patten, Briggs, Sales LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 2, [2017] WLR(D) 32, [2017] Bus LR 883, [2017] RPC 15

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 39(1) 40 41

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At ChD (1) – Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others ChD 3-Dec-2009
Appeal against refusal to admit supplementary statement of case. The claimant had, while employed by the defendant created a pump which came to be widely used in the management of diabetes. He was seeking recompense for his contribution. . .
Appeal from – Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others PatC 23-May-2014
The claimant sought statutory compensation, having whilst employee of the defendant, created a pump which came to widely used in the testing of diabetic status. . .
Leave application – Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others CA 17-Jun-2015
Renewed application for leave to appeal against rejection of employee’s invention compensation claim. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others SC 23-Oct-2019
The claimant appealed from refusal of statutory compensation under the 1977 Act. He had invented a form of pump which was used by his employers, the respondents in the management of diabetes management.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the correct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.573282

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 antigens of a hepatitis virus was patented with a priority date of 22 December 1978 but was conceded to have been obvious by 21 December 1979.
Held: The claim for a DNA patent was too broad; no new principle was shown, and other means were available of achieving the technical effect claimed. The question of whether an invention was obvious should be treated with appropriate respect by an appellate court, and specific findings of fact, even by the most meticulous judge, are inherently an incomplete statement of the impression which was made upon him by the primary evidence. Where the application of a legal standard such as negligence or obviousness involves no question of principle but is simply a matter of degree, an appellate court should be very cautious in differing from the judge’s evaluation. Disclosure must enable the invention to be performed to the full extent of the monopoly claimed.
Lord Hoffmann discussed a court of appeal reversing a decision of the first court: ‘The need for appellate caution in reversing the trial judge’s evaluation of the facts is based upon much more solid grounds than professional courtesy. It is because specific findings of fact, even by the most meticulous judge, are inherently an incomplete statement of the impression which was made upon him by the primary evidence. His express findings are always surrounded by a penumbra of imprecision as to emphasis, relative weight, minor qualifications and nuance (as Renan said, la verite est dans une nuance), of which time and language do not permit exact expression, but which may play an important part in the judge’s overall evaluation.’ and ‘Where the application of a legal standard such as negligence or obviousness involves no question of principle but is simply a matter of degree, an appellate court should be very cautious in differing from the judge’s evaluation.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hoffmann

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-1996, [1997] RPC 1, [1996] UKHL 18, (1997) 38 BMLR 149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(1) 72(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Biogen Inc v Medeva Plc CA 28-Nov-1994
The description in a patent application’s specification must be of an invention. . .
Cited – Allmanna Svenska Electriska A/B v The Burntisland Shipbuilding Co Ltd 1952
The question whether an the invention was obvious was ‘a kind of jury question’. As such, an appellate court should be reluctant to disturb it. If it was so obvious, the patent was invalid. . .
Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
Cited – Benmax v Austin Motor Co Ltd HL 1955
Except for cases which are expressly limited to questions of law, an appellant is entitled to appeal from the Court of Session to the House against any finding, whether it be a finding of law, a finding of fact or a finding involving both law and . .
Cited – Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK’s Application HL 1991
The House considered a case involving the issue of enablement of a particular peptide in a patent application.
Held: On the assumed facts that there had been a prior disclosure of the same invention neither the disclosed information nor common . .

Cited by:

Cited – Seb SAa v Societe De’Longhi Spa CA 4-Jul-2003
The claimant’s action for patent infringement had been dismissed on the basis that the patent was invalid for obviousness.
Held: There was material before the judge on which he could properly conclude as he did on the presence of common . .
Cited – Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
Cited – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC) HL 28-Nov-2000
Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much?
The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the . .
Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Cited – Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc HL 21-Oct-2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’).
Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance . .
Cited – Hoff and others v Atherton CA 19-Nov-2004
Appeals were made against pronouncements for the validity of a will and against the validity of an earlier will. The solicitor drawing the will was to receive a benefit, and had requested an independent solicitor to see the testatrix and ensure that . .
Cited – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited – Harding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
Cited – Sherrington v Sherrington CA 22-Mar-2005
The deceased, a solicitor of long standing, was said to have signed his will without having read it, and had two witnesses sign the document without them knowing what they were attesting. He had remarried, and the will was challenged by his . .
Cited – Parker v Synder, Siddons, Price CA 1-Nov-2005
Application for leave to appeal, and to adduce further evidence. The claim alleged that the defendants had purchased his company for a nominal down payment, but then run the company down.
Held: The appeal against the refusal to admit new . .
Cited – Robin Sharp and Malcolm Bryson v Grace Collin Adam and Emma Adam and others CA 28-Apr-2006
The testator suffered secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. It was said that he did not have testamentary capacity. He had lost the power of speech but communicated by a speech board. The solicitor had followed appropriate standards in attesting . .
Applied – 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. . .
Cited – Pozzoli Spa v BDMO Sa and Another CA 22-Jun-2007
The patentee had invented a method for storing CDs. The patentee sought leave to appeal a finding that its patent was invalid, and if successful, to appeal a finding that the defendant’s apparatus was not infringing.
Held: The application for . .
Cited – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
Cited – Sibley and Co v Reachbyte Ltd and Another ChD 4-Nov-2008
Solicitors appealed against a costs order made refusing them payment of all of Leading and Junior counsel’s fees.
Held: The leading counsel involved had not provided anything like a detailed account of the time he had spent on what was a . .
Applied – Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S (Costs) PatC 27-Jun-2007
The parties disputed the patentability of an anti-depressant drug Citalopram (Prozac).
Held: the claims were invalid for insufficiency. . .
Cited – H Lundbeck A/S v Generics (UK) Ltd and others CA 10-Apr-2008
The court heard an appeal against a finding that a patent for a chemical compound was invalid for insufficiency.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Enough information to ‘work the invention’ meant in order to make the product. . .
Cited – Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S HL 25-Feb-2009
Patent properly granted
The House considered the patentability of a chemical product, citalopram made up of two enantiomers, as opposed to the process of its creation, questioning whether it could be new or was insufficient within the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Charania v Harbour Estates Ltd CA 27-Oct-2009
The defendant appealed against the award of the estate agent’s fees, acting under a sole agency agreement. The agreement had been terminated. A buyer who had seen the property first under the agency later returned and negotiated a purchase.
Cited – Cooper and Others v Fanmailuk.Com Ltd and Another CA 17-Dec-2009
F claimed to be the beneficial owner of shares registered in the names of the claimants. The appellants challenged a finding that the shares were held on trust for F, and the implication that the first appellant had presented a dishonest claim.
Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .
Cited – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd SC 24-Jun-2020
SC Kymab Ltd (‘Kymab’) alleges that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The . .
Cited – Warner-Lambert Company Llc v Generics (UK) Ltd (T/A Mylan) and Another SC 14-Nov-2018
These proceedings raise, for the first time in the courts of the United Kingdom, the question how the concepts of sufficiency and infringement are to be applied to a patent relating to a specified medical use of a known pharmaceutical compound. Four . .
Cited – Actavis Group PTC EHF and Others v ICOS Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not . .
Cited – Shanks v Unilever Plc and Others SC 23-Oct-2019
The claimant appealed from refusal of statutory compensation under the 1977 Act. He had invented a form of pump which was used by his employers, the respondents in the management of diabetes management.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the correct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.78407

Emcur v EUIPO – Emcure Pharmaceuticals (Emcure): ECFI 14 Jun 2018

(EU Trade Mark – Judgment) EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark EMCURE – Earlier EU and national word marks EMCUR – Relative ground for refusal – Similarity of the goods and services – 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-165/17, [2018] EUECJ T-165/17, ECLI:EU:T:2018:346

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 April 2022; Ref: scu.618057

Casual Dreams v EUIPO (Trade Marks – Judgment): ECFI 1 Jun 2018

Trademark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Application for a figurative European Union mark Dayaday – Earlier national figurative marks DAYADAY and dayaday – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8 (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207 / 2009 [renumbered – Article 8 (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001] – Renamed – Profit unreasonably derived from the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier mark

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 327, [2018] EUECJ T-900/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616994

VKR Holding v Euipo (Velux): ECFI 18 May 2018

Eu Trade Mark – Order – EU trade mark – Application for EU word mark VELUX – Claiming the seniority of the earlier national word mark VELUX – Revocation of the decision of the Board of Appeal – Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:299, [2018] EUECJ T-465/17 – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616990

Prada v EUIPO – The Rich Prada International (The Rich Prada): ECFI 5 Jun 2018

EU Trade Mark – Judgment – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark THE RICH PRADA – Earlier national and international word and figurative marks PRADA – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Likelihood of confusion

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:328, [2018] EUECJ T-111/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617000

Uribe-Etxebarria Jimenez v Euipo – Nucleo De Comunicaciones Y Control (Sherpa): ECFI 29 May 2018

(Judgment) European Union mark – Annulment proceedings – Verbal European Union mark SHERPA – Earlier national word mark SHERPA – Declaration of partial invalidity – Subject-matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal – Genuine use of the mark – Article 42, paragraph 2 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 47 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 53 (1) (a) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 60 , paragraph 2 (a) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Relative ground for refusal – likelihood of confusion – Article 8 (1) (a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 8 (1) (a) and (b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:305, [2018] EUECJ T-577/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616986

Tsujimoto v EUIPO: ECJ 30 May 2018

EU Trade Mark – Judgment – Appeal – EU trade mark – Applications for registration of the word mark KENZO ESTATE – Earlier EU word mark KENZO – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(5) – Relative ground for refusal of registration – Reputation – Due cause

Citations:

C-85/16, [2018] EUECJ C-85/16P

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616983

Lifestyle Equities Cv and Another v Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd and Others (No 1): ChD 20 Apr 2018

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 728 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Lifestyle Equities Cv and Another v Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd and Others (No 2) ChD 20-Apr-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Contract

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616129

Lifestyle Equities Cv and Another v Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd and Others (No 2): ChD 20 Apr 2018

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 962 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lifestyle Equities Cv and Another v Sportsdirect.Com Retail Ltd and Others (No 1) ChD 20-Apr-2018
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Contract

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616130

Wirecard AG v EUIPO (Mycard2Go) T-860/16: ECFI 15 May 2018

Intellectual, Industrial and Commercial Property – Judgment – Trademark of the European Union – Application for a mark of the figurative European Union mycard2go – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [ Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:265, [2018] EUECJ T-860/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.615567

Wirecard AG v EUIPO (Mycard2Go) T-676/16: ECFI 15 May 2018

Judgment – Trademark of the European Union – Application for a mark of the figurative European Union mycard2go – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [ Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 266, [2018] EUECJ T-676/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.615569

Wirecard AG v EUIPO (Mycard2Go) T-675/16: ECFI 15 May 2018

Judgment – Trademark of the European Union – Application for a mark of the figurative European Union mycard2go – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [ Article 7 (1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

T-675/16, [2018] EUECJ T-675/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.615568

Triggerball v EUIPO (Forme D’Une Balle Avec Une Pluralite D’Aretes) (Judgment): ECFI 16 May 2018

Trademark of the European Union – Application for a mark of the three-dimensional European Union – Form of a bullet with a plurality of edges – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctiveness – Article 7 (1) (b) of the regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:272, [2018] EUECJ T-387/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 21 April 2022; Ref: scu.615563

European Drinks v OHMI – Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite): ECFI 5 Jun 2014

ECJ (Judgment) Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative marks Dracula Bite and DRACULA BITE – Earlier national figurative mark Dracula – Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Citations:

T-495/12, [2014] EUECJ T-495/12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.526678

B v Land Baden-Wurttemberg: ECJ 17 Apr 2018

ECJ Citizenship of The European Union – Right To Move and Reside Freely – Enhanced Protection v Expulsion – Judgment – References for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the European Union – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 28(3)(a) – Enhanced protection against expulsion – Conditions – Right of permanent residence – Residence in the host Member State for the 10 years preceding the decision to expel the person concerned from that Member State – Period of imprisonment – Consequences as regards the continuity of the 10-year period of residence – Connection with the overall assessment of an integrative link – Time at which that assessment must be carried out and criteria to be taken into account in that assessment

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:256, [2018] EUECJ C-316/16, [2018] WLR(D) 222, [2019] QB 126, [2018] 3 CMLR 24, [2018] 3 WLR 1035, [2018] INLR 399

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

European

Immigration, European

Updated: 16 April 2022; Ref: scu.609049

Raise Conseil v EUIPO – Raizers (Raise): ECFI 3 May 2018

(Judgment) European Union mark – Annulment proceedings – European Union word mark RAISE – Absolute ground for refusal – Distinctiveness – Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 Article 7 (1) (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Distinctiveness acquired through use – Article 7 (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7 (3) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Article 52 (1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59 (1) and (2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 249, [2018] EUECJ T-463/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609519

Skyleader v EUIPO – Sky International (Skyleader): ECFI 4 May 2018

Eu Trade Mark – Judgment – EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative mark SKYLEADER – Failure to take into account evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal – Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001] – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001] – Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 [now Article 19(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU 2017/1430]

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:256, [2018] EUECJ T-34/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609525

Laboratoires Majorelle v EUIPO – Jardin Majorelle (Laboratoires Majorelle): ECFI 3 May 2018

(Judgment) Trademark of the European Union – Opposition proceedings – Trademark application of the European Union verb LABORATOIRES MAJORELLE – Earlier European Union word mark MAJORELLE – 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) – Earlier trade marks – Division of the trade mark application – Article 44 (6) , of Regulation No 207/2009 [now Article 50 (6) of Regulation 2017/1001

Citations:

ECLI: EU: T: 2018: 250, [2018] EUECJ T-429/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609514