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 67

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


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


The “innocent” copying defence: only applicable to works out of copyright
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • March 30 2012

In David Hoffman v Drug Abuse Resistance Education (UK) Ltd 2012 EWPCC 2, the Patents County Court of England and Wales assessed the use of the “innocent copying” defence under Section 97 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988


Composite marks: identity, similarity and likelihood of confusion
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • March 30 2012

In Ghias (ta Griller) v Ikram 2012 EWPCC 3, Miss Recorder Michaels, sitting in the Patents County Court, partly upheld but largely dismissed claims of infringement under Section 10(1), (2) and (3) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 brought by a fast food business chain trading as “Griller”, against three similar businesses trading as “Griller”“The Griller Original”, “The Griller King” and “Griller Hut”


Jurisdiction to award damages for online infringement of “personality rights” clarified
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • November 29 2011

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that victims of infringements of “personality rights” by means of the internet can chose to bring actions before the courts of the Member State in which they reside in respect of all the damage caused


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


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


The European General Court decides only visible parts determine overall impression
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • November 3 2011

In Kwang Yang Motor Co Ltd v OHIM Cases T-1008 and T- 1108 9 September 2011 (unreported) the European General Court (GC) held that a design that constituted a component part of a complex product could only be considered to have individual character if the component part remained visible during normal use and fulfilled the requirements as to novelty and individual character


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”