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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-6 of 6

BLG Monthly Update

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Argentina, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • December 19 2012

The BLG Monthly Update is a digest of recent developments in the law which Neil Guthrie, our National Director of Research, thinks you will find

2010 year in review: key legal and regulatory developments

  • Allen & Gledhill LLP
  • -
  • Singapore
  • -
  • December 28 2010

In this last issue for the year 2010, the Allen & Gledhill Legal Bulletin provides an overview of the key developments in 2010

Comparative advertising of a generic medicine

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • France
  • -
  • December 15 2009

It is not necessary within the meaning of Article L. 713-6 of the French Intellectual Property Code (“CPI”) to mention the brand of the reference product in comparative advertising for a generic medicine, as the healthcare professionals to which the advertising is directed have other means (namely, the INN - international non-proprietary name) by which to identify the corresponding reference product

Repercussions expected on medicine advertising campaign

  • Olivares & Cía
  • -
  • Mexico
  • -
  • December 2 2009

A bold new television advertising and publicity campaign was launched recently by a pharmaceutical company called Genoma Lab

Repercussions expected on medicine advertising campaign in Mexico

  • Olivares & Cía
  • -
  • Mexico
  • -
  • November 2 2009

A recent high-profile marketing initiative by a Mexican pharmaceutical company appears to be a clear example of unfair competition

City of Hope National Medical Center v Genentech, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2008

In an important decision for technology and entertainment companies, the California Supreme Court held that a fiduciary relationship does not necessarily arise when parties enter into an agreement involving the disclosure of intellectual property in exchange for royalties

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy