Sentences with phrase «trade mark infringement which»

The first unexpected email of the day has arrived, and a long standing client has informed us of a new case of passing off and trade mark infringement which they want to pursue and want us to write a letter before action on their behalf.

Not exact matches

Treasury Wine has launched legal action against Rush Rich for trade mark infringements exploiting the company's Penfolds brand, including the unauthorised use of Treasury's BEN FU trademark, which is the lettering and characters used in China for Penfolds.

Registration allows the agent an enhanced ability to prevent parallel trading of goods and a clear evidential basis upon which to proceed with any actions for trade mark infringement (such as dealing with counterfeit goods).

More recently, Under Armour successfully sued sportswear manufacturer, Uncle Martian, for trade mark infringement and New Balance won a damages award of US$ 1.5 million in an infringement action in which the defendants were selling trainers which infringed its»N' logo.

Bainbridge has also brought a trade mark infringement and passing off claim against Navigate Travel on behalf of Sail Week Croatia, which alleges that the defendant used the brand Sail Week in a sector that competed with its brand.

At first instance, the High Court held -LRB-[2006] EWCA Civ 1656, [2006] All ER (D) 49 (Dec)-RRB- that the use of the O2 bubble marks by 3 was a breach of O2's rights under Art 5 of the Trade Marks Directive 89/104 / EEC (TMD), but said that the advertisement complied with the terms of the Comparative Advertising Directive 97 / 55 / EC (CAD) and so Art 6 (1) of the TMD, which provides a defence for «indications concerning the kind, quality and quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods of rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or services... provided [they are used] in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters» which meant there was no infringemarks by 3 was a breach of O2's rights under Art 5 of the Trade Marks Directive 89/104 / EEC (TMD), but said that the advertisement complied with the terms of the Comparative Advertising Directive 97 / 55 / EC (CAD) and so Art 6 (1) of the TMD, which provides a defence for «indications concerning the kind, quality and quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods of rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or services... provided [they are used] in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters» which meant there was no infringeMarks Directive 89/104 / EEC (TMD), but said that the advertisement complied with the terms of the Comparative Advertising Directive 97 / 55 / EC (CAD) and so Art 6 (1) of the TMD, which provides a defence for «indications concerning the kind, quality and quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods of rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or services... provided [they are used] in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters» which meant there was no infringement.

34 In the case of an alleged infringement of a national trade mark registered in a Member State because of the display, on the search engine website, of an advertisement using a keyword identical to that trade mark, it is the activation by the advertiser of the technical process displaying, according to pre-defined parameters, the advertisement which it created for its own commercial communications which should be considered to be the event giving rise to an alleged infringement, and not the display of the advertisement itself.

It affirmed the lower court decision of Justice Manson which had held that, on the facts of the case, the use of metatags on web pages did not constitute passing - off, trade - mark infringement or depreciation of goodwill.

O2, which owns two British trade marks consisting of a static picture of bubbles, brought proceedings for trade mark infringement.

The Court of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringeTrade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringemMark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringetrade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringemmark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringement.

I hear Olympics, and my mind starts imagining protests over athletes being excluded, the odd bribe here and there, a little bit of trade - mark infringement, a few doping scandals, maybe demonstrators being kettled and baton charged, which all leads to: lawsuits!

Under Art. 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation (formerly Art. 97 (5)-RRB- jurisdiction is restricted to «the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened».

Therefore the ECJ concluded that a trade mark owner can take infringement action against a licensee who breaches a condition in the licence agreement which falls within Art 8 (2).

Sergey Lovtsov heads the department, which recently represented International Masis Tabak in a trade mark infringement case filed by Philip Morris Brands.