header-logo header-logo

21 February 2014
Issue: 7595 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Blomqvist v Rolex SA and another company C-98/13 [2014] All ER (D) 101 (Feb)

It was settled law, first, that the proprietor of a trade mark was entitled to prohibit a third party from using, without the proprietor’s consent, a sign identical with that trade mark when that use was in the course of trade, was in relation to goods or services which were identical with, or similar to, those for which that trade mark was registered, and affected, or was liable to affect, the functions of the trade mark. Second, under the copyright directive, an exclusive right was conferred on authors to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to the public by sale or otherwise of the original of their works or copies thereof. Distribution to the public was characterised by a series of acts going, at the very least, from the conclusion of a contract of sale to the performance thereof by delivery to a member of the public. A trader in such circumstances bore responsibility for any act carried out by him or on

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll