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 23

Holy non-infringement, Batman!

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2014

The U.S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement claim, finding that a real computer software

Exotic dancing attire may be inherently distinctive, but the Chippendales "Cuffs & Collar" costume is not

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 28 2010

Addressing whether the well-known Chippendales "Cuffs & Collar" costume is inherently distinctive for adult entertainment services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal to register the mark, finding that the costume was not inherently distinctive, but is a "mere variant or refinement" of the Playboy Bunny costume

The Olympics, Paralympics and London Olympics Association Rights: remedies for infringement

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 30 2010

The Olympics, Paralympics and London Olympics Association Rights (Infringement Proceedings) Regulations 20102477 set out the remedial orders that a court can make, with effect from 8 November 2010, in relation to goods, materials or articles that infringe the London Olympics association right (LOAR

Court of Appeal of England and Wales confirms that figurative CTM for “NOW” is descriptive and invalid

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 16 2013

In Starbucks (HK) Ltd and others v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and others 2013 EWCA Civ 1465, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales

CJEU upholds decision rejecting CTM application for PHOTOS.COM

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • March 17 2014

In Getty Images (US) Inc v OHIM C-7013 P, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has upheld an EU General Court decision rejecting a

FreemantleMedia Ltd and 19 TV Ltd (MODEL IDOL and POP IDOL): moderately similar marks and likelihood of confusion

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 28 2010

In June 2010, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) issued its decision in FreemantleMedia Ltd and 19 TV Ltd v James Fleming BL O 205 10

Court of Justice of the European Union provides further guidance on circumstances in which keyword advertising constitutes trademark infringement

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • October 31 2011

The Court of Justice of the European Union has provided further guidance on circumstances in which use of a registered trademark as a keyword in internet advertising by a third party advertiser may constitute trademark infringement

Microsoft’s “SkyDrive” held to infringe Sky’s UK and Community trade marks

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 31 2013

On 28 June 2013, the High Court of England and Wales held in British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and others v Microsoft Corporation and another 2013

Tank top tussle Britney Spears as an indicator of delicious confusion

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

In a decision highlighting the fact-intensive nature of trademark disputes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court reversed a grant of summary judgment but acknowledged that it was “far from certain that consumers were likely to be confused” by defendant’s use of the word DELICIOUS

Halftime score: artist 1; ’bama 0

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2012

Addressing the issue of trademark licensing and infringement, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s ruling that an artist who depicted the University of Alabama’s football teams in paintings had infringed on the university’s trademarks, the appellate court finding the artist’s works were protected by the First Amendment as artistic expression that only used the trademarks as necessary to artistically depict famous football images and therefore did not infringe the university’s trademarks