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

Delivered on 2 October 2003, Advocate General Tizzano’s opinion in the IMS case could mean that an intellectual property right holder in a dominant position may have to grant licences to its competitors.

The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") has confirmed that the mere existence of a likelihood of aural confusion between a registered trade mark and a later indication of geographical origin does not entitle the trade mark owner to prevent the later use unless the later use is not in accordance with honest practices.

The registration of shapes as trade marks is an area of law in a state of flux. Lawyers have wondered whether there is anything specific about shape marks that makes them inherently more difficult to register than word marks.

David Kitchin QC as the Appointed Person considered the question whether the confusion following the assignment of a trade mark amounted to "lawful deception".

This was an appeal made by the appellant/patentee SEB against the finding of the judge that the patent, which concerned so called "cool – wall" fryers, was obvious over common general knowledge. Peter Gibson LJ, giving the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal, upheld the decision of Pumfrey J.</P> <P>De’Longhi, the defendants/respondents, cross-appealed [1] the findings on infringement and insufficiency, which Pumfrey J had made in favour of SEB. On these issues as well, Pumfrey J was uphe

An earn-out is often used as a management incentive where owner-managed businesses are sold and the managers continue to work in the business following the sale.

Boehringer Ingelheim KG & Anr -v- Swingward Lt; Boehringer Ingelheim KG & Ors -v- Dowelhurst Ltd; Glaxo Group Ltd v Swingward Ltd; Glaxo Group Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd; Smithkline Beecham plc & Ors v Dowelhurst Ltd; and Eli Lilly v Dowelhurst Limited.

Following a comprehensive public consultation process, the UK government published a report earlier this month (13 November 2003) indicating which of the numerous amendments to the UK Patents Act 1977 put forward jointly by the Patent Office and Department of Trade & Industry last year, it now intended to include in a proposed Patent Act (Amendment) Bill.</

Robert Paterson highlights a few key changes to the law which will come into force on 1 October 2007.

These days it is quite common in intellectual property actions for claimants to join one or more directors of the defendant company as jointly liable for the infringement. As in the present case it tends to be something a large company does to a much smaller company. This case suggests that a director of a small company who is basically responsible for the company’s trading operations may find it very difficult to escape liability.