Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 14

The “innocent” copying defence: only applicable to works out of copyright

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
March 30 2012

In David Hoffman v Drug Abuse Resistance Education (UK) Ltd 2012 EWPCC 2, the Patents County Court of England and Wales assessed the use of the “innocent copying” defence under Section 97 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

“UK’s safest broadband”: TalkTalk in breach of CAP and BCAP Code

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
February 29 2012

TalkTalk’s adverts claiming to offer the “UK’s safest broadband” have been found to be in breach of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) Code

Information Commissioner calls for compulsory data protection audits

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
November 29 2011

The Information Commissioner has called for an extension of powers to order the compulsory data protection auditing in sectors that are causing concern over their handling of personal information

Pub landlords found to infringe the Premier League’s copyright: pyrrhic victory after all?

McDermott Will & Emery
-
European Union, United Kingdom
-
March 30 2012

In Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure 2012 EWHC 108 (Ch) Lord Justice Kitchin has now accepted that the Defendant publicans communicated copyright works contained in foreign broadcasts of Premier League matches to the public, following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling to that effect in October 2011

Wella fails to prove distinctiveness of SHAPER mark

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
February 29 2012

In Wella Corporation v Alberto-Culver Company 2011 EWHC 3558 (Ch), the UK High Court upheld the decision of a UK Intellectual Property Office Hearing Officer who rejected the application by Wella Corporation to invalidate the Alberto- Culver Company mark FUNKY SHAPER based on Wella’s earlier Community trade mark for SHAPER

Composite marks: identity, similarity and likelihood of confusion

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
March 30 2012

In Ghias (ta Griller) v Ikram 2012 EWPCC 3, Miss Recorder Michaels, sitting in the Patents County Court, partly upheld but largely dismissed claims of infringement under Section 10(1), (2) and (3) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 brought by a fast food business chain trading as “Griller”, against three similar businesses trading as “Griller”“The Griller Original”, “The Griller King” and “Griller Hut”

Foreign companies need actual customers in the United Kingdom to establish passing off

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
November 29 2011

In Plentyoffish Media Inc v Plenty More LLP 2011 EWHC 2568 (Ch), the High Court of England and Wales has held that a foreign company’s reputation in the United Kingdom does not equate to goodwill in the United Kingdom and that actual customers are needed to bring an action in passing off

High burden of proof where concerted copying is alleged

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
November 29 2011

In Pro-Tec Covers Ltd v Specialised Covers Ltd 2011 EWPCC 23, Richard Meade QC, sitting in the Patents County Court, has provided a detailed judgment on an unregistered design right infringement dispute, in which Pro-Tec had alleged that Specialised had undertaken “a concerted campaign of copying by at least four people, followed by a concerted campaign of lying about it and covering it up”

London 2012: advertising in the event zones

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
November 29 2011

England, Scotland and Wales are currently developing secondary legislation to regulate advertising activity and trading in open public places around Olympic and Paralympic events during the 2012 Games

Nominet decisions may be subject to appeal to the High Court

McDermott Will & Emery
-
United Kingdom
-
November 29 2011

In Michael Toth v Emirates 2011 EWPCC 18, his Honour Judge Birss QC, refused to strike out an application seeking to overturn a decision of a Nominet appeal panel that the registration of a domain name was abusive within the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) Policy

next >