Womble Bond Dickinson (WBD) has advised Puma Private Equity which led a £6 million equity investment into Tictrac, a leading health engagement company. The corporate team was led by Partner Leon Miller, Managing Associate Alex Fergus and South African qualified lawyer Alice Millar who advised on the transaction.
The High Court has reiterated that the primary aim of search orders is to preserve evidence, not to serve as some form of early disclosure. The High Court also chose to remind parties (and their representatives) that exceeding the permission given to them by these search orders, carries with it the risk of substantial penalties and severe consequences. In a recent case, it was held that the Claimant and its legal representatives, who pre-emptively searched seized material, without the Defendants' or the Court's permission, committed "serious and completely unjustified" breaches of the terms of the search order.
Following a reference from the High Court of Justice in England & Wales ("High Court"), the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") has confirmed that a lack of clarity and precision in the terms used to designate the goods and services is not an independent ground for declaring a trade mark registration to be invalid. Whilst the CJEU ruling has been criticised subsequently for avoiding some of the key issues, it did rule that an application made without any intention to use that trade mark in relation to the goods and services specified, can constitute bad faith.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") has confirmed that when a seller of goods, who is established in one Member State, sells infringing goods bearing an European Union ("EU") trade mark specifically targeting customers in another Member State, the action can be brought under Article 97(5) of the European Trade Mark Regulation No 207/2009 (the "Regulation"), relating to the international jurisdiction provisions, in the court of the Member State in which the targeted customers reside.
The most recent round of litigation in the Morrisons data breach litigation ended in success for Morrisons at the Supreme Court. The headline ruling was that Morrisons was not vicariously liable for the acts of a rogue employee who stole and distributed employee data.
The Court of Appeal has upheld a sentence of two years' imprisonment suspended for two years and disqualification as a director in respect of an individual convicted of activities amounting to trade mark infringement.