header-logo header-logo

26 June 2008
Issue: 7327 / Categories: Case law , Public , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Trademarks

O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd Case C-533/06 [2008] All ER (D) 155 (Jun)

Article 5 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (trade marks) and Art 3a(1) of Council Directive 84/450/ EEC (misleading and comparative advertising) (the Directive) must be interpreted to the effect that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is not entitled to prevent the use by a third party, in a comparative advertisement, of a sign similar to that mark in relation to goods or services identical with, or similar to, those for which that mark was registered where such use does not give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. That is so irrespective of whether or not the comparative advertisement satisfies all the conditions laid down in Art 3a of the Directive.

Issue: 7327 / Categories: Case law , Public , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

EIP—Stuart Malcolm

EIP—Stuart Malcolm

EIP strengthens Commercial practice with a new partner

Ellisons—Francesca Brown

Ellisons—Francesca Brown

Ellisons welcomes Francesca Brown to Family team

Shakespeare Martineau—Marie Bourke

Shakespeare Martineau—Marie Bourke

Shakespeare Martineau strengthens Sheffield regulatory practice with new hires

NEWS
A wide-ranging Civil Way column highlights developments from insolvency procedure to employment law, but one case stands out for its lessons on bankruptcy, family homes and digital communications
A sprawling Intellectual Property Office battle between House of Fraser and Frasers Property has delivered a masterclass in modern trade mark law
Courts in England and Wales and Singapore are increasingly confronting complex disputes over international child relocation as families become more globally mobile
The government’s long-awaited family law reform consultation could mark a turning point for domestic abuse victims navigating financial remedy proceedings, but significant challenges remain
A new commercial court pilot giving the public access to documents used in hearings, including expert reports, is raising difficult questions about transparency and privacy
back-to-top-scroll