In a prior post, we discussed the ruling of the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court in the In re Howrey LLP case...

The issue as to the distinctiveness and registrability of three-dimensional trade marks has occupied the European courts for some time now, with significant decisions concerning registrability of the shape of a forklift truck, a torch, a wristwatch, cigar and gold ingot shapes for chocolate, the shape of soap tablets for washing machines and the registrability of a three dimensional mark consisting of the packaging of a product.

The final steps to introduce a leniency programme in Spain were adopted yesterday.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) recently issued much awaited decisions (G1/03, G2/03) concerning the use of disclaimers to delimit the claimed subject matter of a patent. Pragmatically, the Enlarged Board has decided that the use of a disclaimer without basis in the original application does not constitute prohibited added subject matter.

On August 11, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California ruled on an issue "of apparent first impression" that claims for unpaid rent brought by landlords for office space leased to the former law firm of Howrey LLP should be given priority status under the Bankruptcy Code.

On 11 September 2007, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive in relation to the right of the owner of a registered trade mark to prevent a third party from using a company name which is identical to its sign.

On 3 March 2005, the Belgium House of Representatives adopted legislation to implement European Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonistion of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.

The European Commission has started to consider whether Directive 2001/ 20/EC, better known as the Clinical Trials Directive (the Directive), needs to be revised.

On 26 May 2004, the District Court of The Hague rendered a decision in a matter between Stork and CFS.Stork claimed a declaration of non-infringement of CFS’s US patent on the grounds of non-infringement and the invalidity of the CFS patent. CFS argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction.

On 3 January 2008, the Court of Appeal of The Hague rendered a decision in the matter of “Mars Inc v Kraft Jacobs Suchard”.

This European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision has made it more difficult for trade mark owners to prevent third parties from referring to their trade marks if such endorsement is ‘honest’.

Last week, a United States District Judge in New York approved the report and recommendation of a Magistrate Judge holding that a headhunter’s contact lists were not protectable trade secrets because the information therein was readily ascertainable on social networking sites. Sasqua Group, Inc. et al. v. Lori Courtney et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93442 (Aug. 2, 2010) (report and recommendation).

Following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by France at the German Federal Ministry of Justice on 19 January 2008, the much anticipated London Agreement will now come into force on 1 May 2008.

France has a reputation for allowing copyright protection for works of applied art. But is this reputation actually deserved in practice?

On 28 February, the High Court handed down an interim judgment in Eli Lilly v Neopharma and Anor (Howrey acting for Eli Lilly) in which it ordered the disclosure of information relating to sales of the (allegedly) infringing pharmaceutical Olanzapine Neopharma.

Plagiarism is increasingly a problem faced by manufacturers of high quality goods.

The multimillion-dollar answer of who owns the rights to unfinished business when law firms fail rests with the California Supreme Court.

When the new EU designs regime came into being in 2002 it was intended to do two things: i) create new EU-wide Community design rights, and ii) harmonise existing national registered design law. The material aspects of the regime— how to assess infringement and validity—are the same for both national registered rights and Community rights.

Copycat or look-alike products are currently one of the biggest issues for brand owners in Europe. A decision of the High Court of England & Wales, refusing an injunction sought by cat food manufacturers Masterfoods, demonstrates the importance of obtaining registered rights for product packaging, where possible.

Since October 2005, an application can be made to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) seeking a non-binding opinion on certain issues of validity and infringement.