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

Unilever plc v Ian Alexander Shanks: calculating employee compensation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 25 2011

Professor Shanks made an invention patented by his employer, Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd (CRL

Eminence Property Developments Ltd v Kevin Heaney: “ a mere honest misapprehension will not justify a charge of repudiation"

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 25 2011

A mistake in calculating the number of days (counting "days" rather than "working" days) in a contract's completion timing led to a dispute (Eminence Property Developments Ltd v Kevin Heaney 2010 EWCA Civ 1168) as to whether it had been repudiated properly and thus terminated validly

Rooney v CSE Bournemouth Ltd: terms and conditions available upon request

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 25 2011

In Rooney v CSE Bournemouth Ltd 2010 EWCA Civ 1364, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that "terms andconditions available upon request" could be interpreted asincorporating a contractor's standard terms

Lifestyle Management Ltd v Frater: domain names and instruments of fraud

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 28 2011

Pointing domain names, which are similar to a former principal's website, to websites that closely resembled the home page of the former principal has been found to be an act of passing off

Bezpečnostni softwarová asociace-Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury: copyright in a graphic user interface

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • Czech Republic, European Union
  • -
  • February 28 2011

The European Court of Justice has ruled that the graphic user interface (GUI) of a computer program is not protectable under the Software Directive (91250EC) but may be a copyright work in itself

Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd: database right and database copyright

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 28 2011

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has confirmed that sui generis database right does not subsist in football fixture lists

Cowshed Products Ltd v Island Origins Ltd: interim injunction and the risk of injustice

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 28 2011

In a case that shows the difficulty of applying the American Cyanamid principles to passing off and trade mark infringement, the judge follows the approach in John Walker & Sons v Rothmans International and Management Publications v Blenhiem Exhibitions and examines where the risk of injustice lies

Long v Comptroller General of Patents: insufficiency and ambiguity

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 25 2011

Ms Long filed a patent application for an invention that provided car parks with an indicator for showing whether a space was occupied

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB v OHIM: movement mark and graphic representation

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 25 2011

Sony sought to register the mark illustrated below as a Community Trade Mark (CTM), filing during prosecution a written description of the mark's movement

Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG v Österreich-Zeitungsverlag GmbH: prize promotions and unfair commercial practices

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 25 2011

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Mediaprint Zeitungsund Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG v Österreich- Zeitungsverlag GmbH C-54008 has held that the possibility of participating in a prize competition, linked to the purchase of a newspaper, does not constitute an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Article 5(2) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (200529EC), simply on the ground that that is what induced some of the consumers concerned to buy the newspaper in the first place