CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | United Kingdom | 30 Dec 2013
The CJEU has set aside a decision of the General Court, thereby confirming that proof that the use of a later mark is, or would be, detrimental to the…
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | European Union | 25 Oct 2013
The ECJ has held in its preliminary ruling that a national court must uphold a prohibition imposed by a proprietor of a trade mark on a third party…
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | United Kingdom | 30 Aug 2013
This case involves the Supreme Court's decision on whether Virgin Atlantic was entitled to claim damages in respect of infringement of its flat bed…
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | European Union | 25 Jan 2013
The CJEU has given its long-awaited and much-anticipated decision in the ONEL/OMEL case, which turned on the issue of the extent of geographical use…
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | United Kingdom | 21 Sep 2012
The High Court has refused to grant a stay of proceedings for infringement of a Community Trade Mark under Article 104(1) of the CTM Regulation where there were parallel proceedings before OHIM.
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | European Union, United Kingdom | 19 Jul 2012
The CJEU has ruled on the questions referred to it following the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorney’s appeal against the refusal to allow its registration of “IP TRANSLATOR” in relation to Class 41 of the Nice Classification.
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | United Kingdom | 30 Sep 2011
Mr Justice Floyd has granted an application for an expedited trial in favour of Teva, in circumstances in which, if Teva succeeds in invalidating Warner-Lambert’s patent, Teva may obtain an advantage over other generic manufacturers of the drug atorvastatin, marketed by Warner-Lambert as Lipitor, one of the world’s most successful drugs with an annual turnover exceeding £350 million.
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP | United Kingdom | 23 May 2011
The High Court has passed down judgment in relation to a judicial review brought by two of the UK's largest Internet Service Providers, relating to the legality and proportionality of the Digital Economy Act.