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 65

Microsoft’s “SkyDrive” held to infringe Sky’s UK and Community trade marks
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • July 31 2013

On 28 June 2013, the High Court of England and Wales held in British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and others v Microsoft Corporation and another 2013


WIPO refuses to order the transfer of worldcup2011.com to the International Rugby Board
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • Global
  • January 12 2012

In Rugby World Cup Ltd v Andreas Gyrre WIPO D2011-1520 (1 November 2011) sole panellist Robert Badgely dismissed the complaint by the International Rugby Board (IRB) against ticket reseller Euroteam AS on the basis that the domain name could not be considered confusingly similar to the IRB’s trade marks RUGBY WORLD CUP and RUGBY WORLD CUP 2011, essentially because the dominant term “rugby” was lacking in the domain name


Battle of the ANDROIDS
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 29 2014

In a decision that provides useful guidance on what constitutes abandonment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a district


UK High Court finds no infringement in sponsored links if third party trade marks not referred to explicitly
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • United Kingdom
  • March 17 2014

In Cosmetic Warriors Ltd v Amazon.co.uk Ltd 2014 EWHC 181 (Ch), the UK High Court has considered the extent to which retailers may use third party


Website activity alone sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over non-resident website operator
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 31 2013

Addressing whether a lower court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant found to have defaulted, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh


eBay customers as likely to be confused as anyone else
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • November 25 2013

Finding that eBay buyers are just as likely to be confused as any other consumer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld summary


Court of Justice of the European Union provides ruling on keyword jurisdiction
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • April 30 2012

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH C-52310, has ruled that under Article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation, an advertiser that uses a keyword that infringes a national trade mark on a country-specific top-level domain (TLD) of a Member State other than the Member State where the national trade mark is registered, can be sued in its Member State of establishment


Court of Justice of the European Union provides further guidance on circumstances in which keyword advertising constitutes trademark infringement
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union
  • October 31 2011

The Court of Justice of the European Union has provided further guidance on circumstances in which use of a registered trademark as a keyword in internet advertising by a third party advertiser may constitute trademark infringement


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


Re-registration of domain name containing another’s trademark is not cybersquatting
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • October 31 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a California district court’s holding that re-registration of a domain name containing another’s trademark violated the Anti-Cyberqsuatting Consumer Protection Act