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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 29

EU patent package receives a mixed reaction
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • February 29 2012

The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has backed proposals for the new “EU patent package”, consisting of a unitary patent, language regime, and unified patent court


CJEU rules on copyright protection of photographic portraits
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • February 29 2012

In Case C-14510 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH 1 December 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that portrait photographs enjoy the same copyright protection as any other work


EU privacy: proposal for a new regime
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • February 29 2012

On 25 January 2012, the European Commission published the long-awaited and much-anticipated draft legislation that comprehensively reforms EU data protection law


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


Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA: comparative advertising and products sold in supermarkets
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • January 25 2011

The fact that there are differences in the extent to which you might like to eat certain food products depending on their place of production, the ingredients and who produced them, does not, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said in Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA C-15909, preclude the possibility that an advertisement comparing such products (by reference to price alone, as opposed by reference to any of their other attributes) will fall within the boundaries of permitted comparative advertising, provided the advertisement is not misleading


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


Codorniu Napa Inc v OHIM: figurative marks, wine and likelihood of confusion
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • January 25 2011

In Codorniu Napa Inc v the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) T-3508 23 November 2010 (unreported


Is a trade mark infringed by failure to identify the repackager of a parallel import?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • Denmark, European Union
  • November 29 2011

In Orifarm AS and Paranova Danmark AS v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp joined cases C-40009 and C-20710 28 July 2011 (unreported), the Supreme Court in Denmark sought clarification as to the applicability of the exhaustion of rights principle in relation to parallel imports


General Court upholds OHIM refusal of CTM application for shape of loudspeaker
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • November 29 2011

In Bang & Olufsen AS v OHIM T-50808 6 October 2011 (unreported), the General Court upheld a decision by the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) refusing Bang & Olufsen’s Community trade mark (CTM) application for the shape of a loudspeaker, on the grounds that the mark consisted exclusively of the shape, which gave substantial value to the goods


Top jeans brand 7 For All Mankind could lose right to branded accessories over distinctiveness of “seven”
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • November 29 2011

In Seven SpA v OHIM T-17610 6 October 2011 (unreported) the General Court annulled decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) that rejected an opposition against the mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND on the basis that the Board had erred in finding that there was no similarity between that mark and earlier composite marks featuring predominantly the word “seven”