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: 1-5 of 5

TMT past, present and future: UKEU review of 2012 and preview of 2013

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 15 2013

No duty to monitor" extended to social networks: In February 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") ruled that the owner of an

IT & outsourcing e-bulletin - a round-up of developments

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 31 2012

Ofcom has published a revised version of the Initial Obligations Code for ISPs and copyright owners in an effort to tackle online copyright infringement as per the provisions of the controversial Digital Economy Act

A round-up of developments

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 24 2012

In the case of SAS Institute v World Programming Limited, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") has considered the limited extent to which certain elements of a computer program enjoy copyright protection

No Big Brother required: ECJ extends "no duty to monitor" protection to social networks

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Belgium, European Union
  • -
  • March 30 2012

The Court of Justice of the European Union has published its judgment in the case of SABAM v Netlog, in which it has ruled that the owner of an online social network cannot be obliged to install a general filtering system in order to prevent the unlawful use of protected works

Consumers that cancel distance contracts to be reimbursed initial delivery costs

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 13 2010

The ECJ has confirmed that consumers should be reimbursed for any initial delivery costs on cancellation of a distance contract