Bringing you regular news of key developments in European intellectual property law.




New Wave CZ, a.s. v Alltoys, spol. S.r.o., CJEU, 18 January 2017

New Wave CZ, a.s.Alltoys, spol. S.r.o., CJEU, 18 January 2017

The CJEU has held that the right of an IP right holder to obtain information about the infringer’s activities need not be exercised in the main infringement proceedings and can be exercised in a separate claim, despite ambiguous wording in certain national implementing legislation.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.





Bhayani & Anor v Taylor Bracewell LLP [2016] EWHC 3360 (IPEC)

Bhayani & Anor Taylor Bracewell LLP[2016] EWHC 3360 (IPEC)

Following a summary judgment application, the IP Enterprise Court has held that a solicitor’s reputation does not amount to goodwill to form the basis of a passing off claim. The Court held that there was no reason to depart from the general rule that goodwill generated by employees in the course of their employment vests in the employer and, likewise, goodwill generated in the course of duties carried out within a partnership vests in the partnership.  The Court noted, however, that this is not necessarily the case for writers or performers due to the way in which their business is conducted and perceived by the public.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.

欧洲知识产权法院经过简易程序判决,事务律师的个人名声不构成假冒商标侵权中的商誉。法院认为,本案适用一般的良好商誉规则, 即雇员在雇佣关系中产生的良好商誉归于雇主,合伙关系中产生的良好商誉归于合伙方. 法院指出,以上规则不一定对作家或表演者适用,因为这类群体的商业模式和给公众的印象不同.





Shanks v Unilever Plc and others [2017] EWCA Civ 2

Shanks Unilever Plc and others [2017] EWCA Civ 2

The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court relating to a case which originally began in 2006. The Court held that an invention made by the Claimant during the course of his employment was not of “outstanding benefit” to his employer (under section 40 of the Patents Act 1977). The Claimant was therefore not entitled to statutory compensation and the appeal was dismissed.  The Court declined to give a view on what amount of compensation would have been appropriate had an alternative decision been reached.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.





Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc and Nike Retail Case C-617/15

Hummel Holding A/SNike Inc and Nike Retail C-617/15

The Advocate General has given his opinion, in a case involving the infringement of an EU trade mark, regarding the question of when a non-EU domiciled defendant can be deemed to have an “establishment” in an EU member state for the purposes of Article 97 of Regulation 207/2009.

He has supported a broad interpretation of “establishment” to be “a centre of operations which, in the Member State where it is situated, has the appearance of permanency, such as an extension of the third State parent body”. This would, as in the present case, potentially capture a second-tier subsidiary.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.


该律师认为对“住所”应当采用广义的解释,“住所” 是指“在欧洲成员国内有固定的经营场所,例如是第三国母公司的分支机构。在本案中,这一解释可能会包含二级分支机构. 关于该决定的全文,请点击这里.