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 50

High Court restrains use of QUEENSBERRY mark for sports equipment
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • May 8 2014

In Boxing Brands Limited v Sports Direct International Plc and others 2014 EWHC 91 (Ch), the High Court of England and Wales found that the


High Court declares ASOS UK trade mark not detrimental to ASSOS CTM
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • May 8 2014

In Maier v Asos plc 2014 EWHC 123 (Ch), the High Court of England and Wales has rejected a challenge to the registration of the UK trade mark ASOS


Court of Appeal holds Kiddee Case does not infringe Trunki’s CRD for ride-on suitcase
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • May 8 2014

In Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd 2014 EWCA Civ 181, the Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of Arnold J, finding that the Kiddee Case


Privilege against self-incrimination and the scope of the intellectual property exception
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • March 30 2012

In Stephen John Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd 2012 EWCA Civ 48 the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upheld orders from the High Court of England and Wales requiring the private investigator for the former News of the World newspaper, Mr Mulcaire, to provide information regarding his phone hacking activities, despite Mr Mulcaire’s argument that to do so would infringe his privilege against self-incrimination


Pub landlords found to infringe the Premier League’s copyright: pyrrhic victory after all?
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • March 30 2012

In Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure 2012 EWHC 108 (Ch) Lord Justice Kitchin has now accepted that the Defendant publicans communicated copyright works contained in foreign broadcasts of Premier League matches to the public, following the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling to that effect in October 2011


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


Drug formulation patent found to be invalid in the United Kingdom but valid in other jurisdictions
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • April 30 2012

Mr Justice Arnold’s decision in Teva and others v Astrazeneca AB 2012 EWHC 655 (Pat) invalidated Astrazeneca’s patent for a sustained release formulation of the anti-psychotic drug quetiapine in the United Kingdom, on the grounds of obviousness, just days after the same patent was found to be valid in the Netherlands


International Chamber of Commerce UK cookie guide
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • April 30 2012

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has issued guidance to help website operators and users understand and apply the changes to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 relating to cookies that will come into force in the United Kingdom on 25 May 2012


Serious e-privacy breaches: ICO guidance on monetary penalties
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • March 30 2012

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has laid before the UK Parliament a draft of its new guidance on monetary penalties


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”