We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 41

Is a trade mark infringed by failure to identify the repackager of a parallel import?

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • Denmark, European Union
  • -
  • November 29 2011

In Orifarm AS and Paranova Danmark AS v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp joined cases C-40009 and C-20710 28 July 2011 (unreported), the Supreme Court in Denmark sought clarification as to the applicability of the exhaustion of rights principle in relation to parallel imports

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB v OHIM: movement mark and graphic representation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 25 2011

Sony sought to register the mark illustrated below as a Community Trade Mark (CTM), filing during prosecution a written description of the mark's movement

Registered community designs can infringe earlier registered community designs

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • March 30 2012

The Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the interpretation of the term “any third party” in Article 19(1) of the Community Designs Regulation (62002EC) in its decision in Case C-48810 Celaya Emparanza y Galdos Internacional SA (Cegasa) v Proyectos Integrales de Balizamiento SL

Court of Appeal recasts guidance on granting stays in patent proceedings while European Patent Office proceedings are pending

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 16 2013

In IPCom GmbH & Co Ltd v HTC Europe Ltd and others 2013 EWCA Civ 1496, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales discussed the effect of the

EU General Court finds use of CTM by intermediary to be “outward” and genuine

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 22 2014

In Recaro Holding GmbH v OHIM 2013 T-52412, the EU General Court upheld a decision by the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonization for the

Advocate general considers jurisdiction for claims of infringement of a national trade mark online

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • March 30 2012

In Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH C-52310 (Opinion of Advocate General) 16 February 2012, Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalón considered that the proprietor of a national trade mark may be able to bring an infringement action in the Member State of registration against a third party that has registered a keyword used on a national search engine that is identical to the mark

CJEU Georgetown University SPC judgment

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 22 2014

Following hot on the heels of the 14 November 2013 opinion given by the Advocate General in Georgetown University C-48412, the Court of Justice of

The European General Court decides only visible parts determine overall impression

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • November 3 2011

In Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd v OHIM Cases T-1008 and T- 1108 9 September 2011 (unreported) the European General Court (GC) held that a design that constituted a component part of a complex product could only be considered to have individual character if the component part remained visible during normal use and fulfilled the requirements as to novelty and individual character

Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG v Österreich-Zeitungsverlag GmbH: prize promotions and unfair commercial practices

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 25 2011

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Mediaprint Zeitungsund Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG v Österreich- Zeitungsverlag GmbH C-54008 has held that the possibility of participating in a prize competition, linked to the purchase of a newspaper, does not constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (200529EC), simply on the ground that that is what induced some of the consumers concerned to buy the newspaper in the first place

Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA: comparative advertising and products sold in supermarkets

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 25 2011

The fact that there are differences in the extent to which you might like to eat certain food products depending on their place of production, the ingredients and who produced them, does not, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said in Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA C-15909, preclude the possibility that an advertisement comparing such products (by reference to price alone, as opposed by reference to any of their other attributes) will fall within the boundaries of permitted comparative advertising, provided the advertisement is not misleading