Your search for ‘Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co’ returned 73 results

Glaxo have a patent for the treatment of asthma in which an inhaler simultaneously administers doses of the beta-agonist salmeterol with the steroid fluticasone propionate. The claimants, who are manufacturers and wholesalers of generic pharmaceuticals, brought this action for revocation of the patent claiming that the combination of salmeterol and steroid was obvious at the priority date.

Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 confers the jurisdiction to order costs against a non-party to litigation. In this case, Philips commenced patent infringement proceedings against Aventi Ltd. Princo - a non party to, but a funder of, this litigation - was held liable for Philip’s costs.

Ofcom’s Content Board have upheld the Independent Television Commission’s finding that runner David Bedford’s complaint, against UK TV commercials for the 118 118 directory enquiry service, was well founded.

On 10 July 2003, Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion in the case of <I>Adidas–Salomon AG and Adidas Benelux BV -v- Fitnessworld Trading Ltd</I>.

The House of Lords has confirmed, in an appeal from the Scottish courts, that assignment of future rights to improvements of a patent is not a restraint of trade.

Has The EU Changed The Relationship Between Passing Off Rights and Registered Marks In the UK?

Governments are able to grant compulsory licences to allow the manufacture of patented products without the consent of the patent owner. Such compulsory licences may only be granted if certain conditions are met. Article 31(f) of TRIPS provides that production under such compulsory licensing must be <B>predominantly</B> for the <B>domestic</B> market. This does not help those poorer countries that do not have a manufacturing base since the Article does not appear to allow export to them.

In December 2002 we reported on the High Court decision to exclude from registration Nestlé’s application for the mark HAVE A BREAK on the basis that it was devoid of any distinctive character (Article 3(1)(b) First Council Directive No. 89/104 EEC). Central to the case was the issue of whether HAVE A BREAK had acquired distinctiveness through its extensive use in the phrase "HAVE A BREAK, HAVE A KIT KAT".

An update on EU bankruptcy litigation in the UK

Wragge & Co LLP recently assisted the Dutch company, Compass Publishing BV, to achieve success in the UK courts in establishing infringement of its Community Trade Mark and in seeing off a challenge to its validity.

Commentary on injunction developments and litigation in the UK.

This was a judgment on an application for summary judgment made by Glaxo, the pharmaceutical company, against Dowelhurst, a parallel importer. A qualified injunction was granted by the judge in respect of the consignments for which it had been demonstrated that the right of disposal had not been acquired by the consignee within the European Economic Area ("EEA"). Summary judgment in favour of Glaxo was refused in respect of other consignments in respect of which there was a possibility

The ECJ in the <I>Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex</I><B> </B>case has now confirmed that a jingle trade mark can fulfil the criteria of "being capable of being represented graphically" if it is expressed to be a "sound mark" and classic musical notation is used to describe it.

This case gave the House of Lords the opportunity to sort out some of the inconsistencies in case law surrounding the criminal provisions of the Trade Marks Act. But in doing so, another inconsistency appears to have been created. Their Lordships’ interpretation of the European Court of Justice’s decision in <I>Arsenal</I> seems to be at odds with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation in its <I>Arsenal</I> judgment, handed down just one day earlier.

Mortgage developments and litigation in the UK