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: 1-5 of 5

BIT protections unaffected by EU law: Eastern Sugar BV v Czech Republic

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Czech Republic, European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • January 8 2008

According to a tribunal constituted under the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Rules, protections enjoyed by foreign investors under the Czech-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty are not superseded by the Czech Republic’s accession to the EU

Consumer goods: update

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • China, European Union, Indonesia, Netherlands, United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 29 2012

The Ministry of Commerce People’s Republic of China’s (“MOFCOM”) prohibition of CocaCola’s proposed acquisition of Huiyuan in 2009 generated significant controversy and prompted a fear that the Anti-Monopoly Law could be used to prevent foreign-multinational companies from acquiring well-known Chinese brands and businesses

Two stripes and you're out - ECJ finds decorative use of stripes can still be an infringement of adidas's three-stripes mark and that the "availability" argument does not apply

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • April 15 2008

The general public interest in ensuring that there is availability of certain signs for commercial use (that is a consideration for the assessment of registrability or revocation) is not relevant to considerations of the extent of protection afforded to a mark in terms of the likelihood of confusion (Article 5(1)(b) Trade Marks Directive (Directive); section 10(2) Trade Marks Act 1994 (Act)) or assessment of unfair advantage (Art.5(2) Directive; section 10(3) Act), nor could it be used as a defence in relation to the limitation of the effects of a trade mark under unless the sign used specifically related to the kind, quality or nature of the goods etc (Art. 6(1)(b) Directive; section 11(2) Act

A round-up of developments

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands, United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 4 2011

This e-bulletin summarises recent developments

The ECJ confirms that a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) can be granted irrespective of an existing SPC that has been granted to another patentee for the same 'product'

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, Netherlands
  • -
  • September 4 2009

The ECJ judgment in AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (Case C-48207), following a reference by the Dutch Courts, clarifies the scope of Article 3(c) of the SPC Regulations (previously, and at the time of referral to the ECJ, Regulation 176892 but now Regulation 4692009