header-logo header-logo

06 July 2012
Issue: 7521 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Trade marks

Oracle America Inc (formerly Sun Microsystems Inc) v M-Tech Data Ltd [2012] UKSC 27, [2012] All ER (D) 180 (Jun)

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union differentiated between: (i) cases where the goods had not previously been marketed in the EEA by the proprietor or with his consent and the proprietor was seeking to exercise his rights under Art 5 of the Directive in circumstances where his rights were not yet exhausted under Art 7.1; and (ii) cases governed by Art 7.2, where the goods were legitimately in circulation within the EEA but the proprietor nevertheless claimed to have “legitimate reasons” to oppose their “further commercialisation”. In contrast to the position in relation to the exercise of the proprietor’s extended right under Art 7.2 which might, depending on the facts, engage the principle of free movement of goods, the court considered that that principle was incapable of restricting the right of a trade mark proprietor to prevent the first marketing within the EEA of goods imported from outside the EEA. Where

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll