In a recent patent case, the grant of a supplementary protection certificate ("SPC") – which gives up to five years' extra patent protection – was revoked by the UK High Court as a consequence of annuity fees being underpaid by a company's agent.
In a recent case involving the globally-renowned energy drinks manufacturer, the High Court held that a director (who acted mainly as a litigant in person) was jointly liable for acts of trade mark infringement committed by the company.
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.
The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic shutdown has impacted the daily lives of nearly every person on the planet. So it isn’t surprising that trade mark offices across the globe have seen a number of filings to protect terms relating to 'COVID' and 'coronavirus'.
This article considers how a company might use its intellectual property (IP) assets as part of an operating model in support of its chosen value discipline. It looks at each value discipline and consider how IP might be used in relation to it, providing examples from within the Aerospace & Defence sector.
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.