Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 146

Advocate General's opinion in Case C-5908 Copad v Dior a broad understanding of quality control in trade mark licences?

Wragge & Co LLP
-
European Union
-
January 7 2009

In Copad v Dior the Advocate General (AG) has advised the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on whether a licensee's failure to comply with provisions in a trade mark licence may prevent the exhaustion of the owner's rights in the mark

Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Preliminary Report

Wragge & Co LLP
-
European Union
-
December 19 2008

This analysis is the first in a series relating to the European Commission Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Preliminary Report of 28 November 2008

Europe rules against embryonic stem cells patent

Wragge & Co LLP
-
European Union
-
January 7 2009

By a landmark decision dated 25 November 2008, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) refused a patent application by Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) (the Appellant) covering the use of human embryonic stem cells (ESCs

European court decision in the ASW case

Wragge & Co LLP
-
European Union, United Kingdom
-
January 30 2007

The ASW case is an important European Court of Justice decision in the fight by ASW pension scheme members for government compensation for loss of their pension benefits following ASW’s insolvency

Commission publishes final report on retail banking sector inquiry

Wragge & Co LLP
-
European Union
-
February 7 2007

On 31 January 2007, the European Commission published its final report on the inquiry into the retail banking sector

Proposed EU insurance directive - a disaster for pension scheme funding?

Wragge & Co LLP
-
European Union
-
February 6 2007

Currently, occupational pension schemes do not have to comply with the solvency requirements applicable to life insurers

Black & Decker v OHIM

Wragge & Co LLP
-
European Union
-
May 31 2007

In Black & Decker Corporation v OHIM, Atlas Copco AB, the Court of First Instance ("CFI") has offered useful guidance on the correct interpretation of Rules 18(1), 79 and 80(2) of Regulation 286895 (the "Implementing Regulation") with regards to "clearly identifying the earlier mark and earlier right" which forms the basis of any opposition notice