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 22

WIPO refuses to order the transfer of worldcup2011.com to the International Rugby Board

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • Global
  • -
  • January 12 2012

In Rugby World Cup Ltd v Andreas Gyrre WIPO D2011-1520 (1 November 2011) sole panellist Robert Badgely dismissed the complaint by the International Rugby Board (IRB) against ticket reseller Euroteam AS on the basis that the domain name could not be considered confusingly similar to the IRB’s trade marks RUGBY WORLD CUP and RUGBY WORLD CUP 2011, essentially because the dominant term “rugby” was lacking in the domain name

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

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

Ninth Circuit eliminates presumption of irreparable harm for trademark owners seeking a preliminary injunction

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2013

In yet another chapter in the epic saga regarding use of the musical group name “The Platters,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit

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

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

Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM: losing distinctiveness

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

In Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM 2011 unreported, the General Court of the European Union has held that the combination of "F" and "1" would be perceived as an abbreviation of "Formula 1" and descriptive of racing cars and races

.xxx domain names to become available from September 2011

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • Global
  • -
  • June 15 2011

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers recently approved the use of the .xxx suffix as a top-level domain name space, to be used by the online adult entertainment industry

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

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