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 40

Further CJEU guidance on keyword advertising and trade mark infringement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • November 3 2011

In (1) Interflora Inc. (2) Interflora British Unit v (1) Marks & Spencer plc (2) Flowers Direct Online Ltd, Case C-32309 (22 September 2011), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has provided further guidance on circumstances in which use of a registered trade mark as a keyword by a third party advertiser may constitute trade mark infringement


Sui generis database rights and what constitutes a substantial part
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • November 3 2011

In Beechwood House Publishing v Guardian Products Ltd 2011 EWPCC 22, the Claimant’s database right was found to have been infringed when the Defendants extracted 6,000 records from the Claimant’s database of 43,000 records


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


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


ITV Broadcasting Ltd v tv Catch Up Ltd: communication to the public of a broadcast
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • January 25 2011

Refusing the Defendant's application for summary judgment in ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TV Catch Up Ltd 2010 EWHC 3063 (Ch), Mr Justice Kitchin has held that, as regards broadcasts, the meaning of communication to the public within Section 20 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 is not limited to broadcasts but extends to all communications by electronic means, whether one-to-one or one-to-many


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


JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd: privacy, interim injunction, open justice and refusal to grant anonymity
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • January 25 2011

In JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd 2010 EWHC 2818 (QB), the High Court of England and Wales refused to continue an anonymity order, despite the parties having agreed thereto, but agreed to continue an order to withhold all information concerning the subject-matter of the case


EDI Central Ltd v National Car Parks Ltd: all reasonable endeavours and utmost good faith
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • January 25 2011

In EDI Central Ltd v National Car Parks Ltd 2010 CSOH 141, Lord Glennie found that EDI Central Ltd had not breached a contractual obligation to pursue, "with all reasonable endeavours and as would be expected of a normal prudent commercial developer experienced in developments of that nature", the development of an NCP car park


“UK’s safest broadband”: TalkTalk in breach of CAP and BCAP Code
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • February 29 2012

TalkTalk’s adverts claiming to offer the “UK’s safest broadband” have been found to be in breach of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) Code


Wella fails to prove distinctiveness of SHAPER mark
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • February 29 2012

In Wella Corporation v Alberto-Culver Company 2011 EWHC 3558 (Ch), the UK High Court upheld the decision of a UK Intellectual Property Office Hearing Officer who rejected the application by Wella Corporation to invalidate the Alberto- Culver Company mark FUNKY SHAPER based on Wella’s earlier Community trade mark for SHAPER