Unlike the President, the Court of Appeal found no trade mark violation on any of the grounds relied on by InBev.

On 15 June 2017, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the guarantee scheme granted by Belgium to three financial cooperatives of the ARCO group.

On 26 September 2013, Advocate General Wathelet issued an Opinion on an appeal brought by Telefónica against a General Court judgment that upheld a Commission Decision against the company for margin squeezing.

On 2 February 2012, Advocate General Mazak handed down his opinion in the appeal by Tomra against the General Court’s September 2010 judgment, concluding that Tomra’s appeal should be dismissed in its entirety.

On 26 September 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") handed down judgments dismissing in their entirety appeals lodged by the companies Alliance One International and Agroexpansión ("Alliance One"), as well as a cross-appeal lodged by the European Commission, against earlier judgments of the General Court ("GC") which largely upheld the Commission’s findings in its 2004 decision in the Spanish raw tobacco cartel case, while granting a small reduction of the fines imposed on A

Collective management organisations ("CMOs") represent the combined copyrights of their members, with one society typically managing a given right or set of rights for all artists in a given country...

On 27 September 2012, the General Court handed down sixteen judgments in the Dutch bitumen cartel case.

On 12 December 2012, the General Court of the European Union handed down a judgment dismissing an appeal by electricity company Electrabel against a European Commission decision to fine it for acquiring control of Compagnie Nationale du Rhone without having received prior approval under the Merger Regulation.

The European Commission recently announced that it had formally sent Motorola Mobility a Statement of Objections over the company's alleged misuse of mobile phone standard essential patents.

On 18 October 2018, the General Court upheld an appeal lodged by the GEA group against the European Commission's readopted decision in the heat stabilisers cartel case and annulled the Commission's decision ...

In its judgment of 13 March 2013, the European Court of Human Rights (the "ECtHR") declared that exchange of information on the Internet is covered by a person’s right of freedom of expression, contained in Article 10 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the "ECHR").

On 9 February 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "ECJ") answered a preliminary question referred to it by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (the "Referring Court") in Novartis AG ("Novartis") v. Actavis UK Ltd.

On 19 April 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") held that EU data protection rules do not preclude national legislation from providing that national courts can order IP address information to be provided to copyright owners whose rights have been infringed.

Finally, Reber argued that OHIM had violated the principle of equal treatment by reaching different conclusions in similar cases concerning the same opponent.

Finally, Reber argued that OHIM had violated the principle of equal treatment by reaching different conclusions in similar cases concerning the same opponent.

On 25 March 2019, the European Commission ("Commission") announced its decision to fine Nike € 12,555,000 for limiting the ability of licensees to sell licensed merchandising products to other EEA countries.

On 29 November 2011, the European Commission adopted a package of proposals in order to encourage consumers to solve their conflicts through out-of-court proceedings.

On 9 April 2019, the General Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Qualcomm against the Commission's decision of 31 March 2017 requesting information in the context of an investigation against Qualcomm ...

On 12 December 2012, the French Competition Authority issued its decision fining Danish high-end electronics manufacturer Bang & Olufsen and its French subsidiary € 900,000 for imposing a de facto prohibition on online sales of its hi-fi and audio products, thereby weakening competition between distributors.

The Constitutional Court did not accept the complaints by several companies that were found to have committed a cartel offence.