Search for: "Arnold v. Arnold"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 2,142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Feb 2023, 7:07 am
Nestle v Cadbury [2022] EWHC 1671 (Ch) (July 2022)You can’t trade mark a colour. [read post]
17 May 2010, 6:51 am
Arnold III http://www.thurmanarnold.com [read post]
27 Oct 2019, 8:23 am
Price v Filtcraft', Rose also reports on the Price v Filtcraft decision on what happens if the infringement continues after a court orders an injunction. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 7:13 am
He referred in particular to comments by Laddie J in Mercury Communications Ltd v Mercury Interactive (UK) Ltd [1995] FSR 850, at 863-865; by Jacob J in Laboratoire De La Mer Trade Marks [2002] FSR 51, at [19]; and by Aldous LJ in Thomson Holidays v Norwegian Cruise Line [2002] EWCA Civ 1828; [2003] RPC 32, at [29]. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 7:58 am
Over on IP Finance, fellow Kat Neil muses about the IP dimensions of 3D printing while, on the 1709 Blog, Iona Harding updates us on the recent decision of Mr Justice Arnold (Chancery Division, England and Wales) in EMI and others v BSkyB and others on website blocking injunctions -- a subject which is starting to develop quite an interesting jurisprudence. [read post]
27 Dec 2019, 5:43 am
In the decision, the court dismissed Gilead's appeal and agreed with Mr Justice Arnold's decision in September 2018, which found that Gilead's SPC protecting its combination HIV anti-retroviral drug, Truvada, was invalid.Léon Dijkman reported on the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Hague in HE Licences v VG Colours. [read post]
22 May 2015, 10:38 am
Patentees can no longer take for granted profits made during the term of interim injunctive relief, irrespective of the outcome of the substantive claim.More generally, as regards the availability of interim relief against generic pharmaceutical companies where an invention is claimed in Swiss form, the outcome of the appeal of Arnold J's decision in Warner-Lambert v Actavis [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) is awaited with interest.Many thanks to both Paul and Ailsa for both the summary… [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 6:54 am
" (Bonz Group (Pty) Ltd v Cooke [1994] 3 N.Z.L.R. 216). [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 2:42 am
| Friday Fantasies | Meet the Trade Mark Judges (Part One) | HHJ Hacon amplifies the law on EU trade mark jurisdiction: AMS-Neve v Heritage Audio | Launch of IP Pro Bono scheme | Lundbeck v European Commission - a rotten decision or effective competition law enforcement? [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 5:26 am
As Arnold LJ clarified, these instances of accessio “all concern new tangible property which is produced by existing tangible property. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 6:37 am
Two recent English cases, Karen Millen v Karen Millen Fashions Ltd and Skyscape Cloud Services Ltd v Sky Plc, indirectly consider Declarations of Non-Infringement in relation to Trade Marks. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 4:09 am
This Kat was reminded of the recusal situation in the patent action of Resolution v Lundbeck, where Mr Justice Arnold assured us that he was not swayed by his subconscious (see Katpost here).Nike and the Chuck Taylor sneaker: an epic billion dollar dispute (see Katpost here)Annabelle Gauberti spoke about how trade marks are being used in the US to protect the appearance of the Converse ‘Chuck Taylor’ sneaker. [read post]
13 May 2014, 9:23 am
"All this is compliant with the GAT and Folien decisions and the Corte di Cassazione ruling, as well the UK decision in Joined cases Actavis Group hf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) and Medis ehf v Eli Lilly & Company (USA) [here]. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 5:30 am
Arnold, III, CFLS [read post]
16 May 2019, 4:59 pm
(Common Law v. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 4:17 am
An AIPPI Rapid Response Event I WIPO's statistics for 2016: Asia continues to roar I UK UPC ratification still on track despite Article 50 trigger I Does Mr Justice Arnold's decision in Teva v MSD show just how large a role patent law has come to play in assessing SPC validity? [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 8:35 am
I BREAKING: Unanimous Supreme Court in Samsung v Apple finds that damages may be based on a component, not whole product I Will Iceland's EU trade mark end up on ice? [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 1:17 am
Alexandra Mezulanik, research assistant at UCL IBIL, examines the much anticipated decision in Martin v Kogan of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. [read post]
17 Sep 2016, 4:56 am
This was the question facing the UK Information Tribunal recently in Queen Mary University of London v (1) The Information Commissioner and (2) Alem Matthees. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 7:48 am
This is assuming that the mark’s distinctiveness is a live issue, and bearing in mind that the court’s consideration of this issue might depend on the particular s 3(1)/7(1) subsection it deems to be enlivened.In Société Des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 16 (Ch) at [40]-[45],Arnold J outlined the general principles involved in assessing distinctiveness, stressing the broad nature of this inquiry. [read post]
