The judgment is of particular importance since it appears to represent a reversal in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

Contrary to Portuguese law, the application of Luxembourg law would not have resulted in the termination of the pending lawsuits.

In 2010, Apple registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office a three-dimensional trade mark consisting of a representation of its flagship store.

Bacardi had not consented to the marketing of the goods at issue in the EEA and claimed infringement of its Benelux trade marks.

PR Aviation had cited Article 15 of Directive 96/9/EC, which affirms the mandatory nature of certain provisions by declaring null and void any contractual provision to the contrary.

On 12 December 2018, the EU General Court dismissed the application for annulment which Canal + SA had brought against a European Commission decision that had made commitments offered by Paramount Pictures Ltd ...

Hence, the ECJ found that the German law infringed both the InfoSoc Directive and the Enforcement Directive.

On 25 November 2014, the General Court of the European Union held that the registration of the shape of the Rubik’s cube as a Community Trade Mark is valid.

On 10 June 2015, the Council of the EU's Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) approved a compromise agreement on the proposed trade mark reform package...

The Commission had already accepted and made binding commitments offered by Paramount Pictures in July 2016.

The second question was whether a provision of national law can limit the application of Article 7(f) of the Data Protection Directive.

The issue was eventually brought before the German Federal Administrative Court which referred a number of questions to the ECJ.

On 15 April 2014, the French Competition Authority published a study summarising comments it received on its leniency programme.

The new legislation introduces class actions into the French legal system and more specifically into competition law matters.

On 19 November 2015, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf (the "Court") rejected a car insurer's claim for damages resulting from the European Commission's decision in the car glass cartel case.

In the present case, the patents were neither standard essential nor non-avoidable.

On 21 August 2025, the European Union and the United States published a Joint Statement (JS) "on a United States-European framework on an agreement on reciprocal...

In certain respects, however, transposition was not deemed necessary.

The UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment on an appeal challenging a Court of Appeal decision, finding that damages actions had been brought in time.

Of immediate relevance for third countries is the APF's assault against "foreign governments' free-riding off American investment in innovation".