Results: 147

• Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd (No 1)

  31 Mar 2010 [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat); [2010] Bus LR 1244, Ch D (Floyd J)

  29 Mar 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 303; [2011] Bus LR 1510; [2011] WLR (D) 115, CA

  13 Mar 2013 [2013] UKSC 16; [2013] Bus LR 565; [2013] 2 All ER 177; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 18.
  PATENT — Infringement — Making product
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PATENT — Infringement — Making product — Invention claimed as combination — Whether person who replaces element “makes” patented product — Whether whole inventive concept remaining once element removed — Correct test to be applied — Patents Act 1977, s 60(1)(a)

  5 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

• Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd

  18 Jul 2013 (Case C-252/12); EU:C:2013:497; [2013] Bus LR 1277; [2013] WLR (D) 287, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 32.
  TRADE MARK — Proprietor’s rights — Trade mark with reputation

  TRADE MARK — Revocation — “Genuine use”

  EUROPEAN UNION — Trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRADE MARK — Proprietor’s rights — Trade mark with reputation — Community figurative trade mark registered in black and white but used in green — Whether defendant’s use of allegedly infringing sign in green relevant to “likelihood of confusion” — Whether use of defendant’s sign in green relevant to whether sign taking “unfair advantage” of mark’s distinctive character — Whether defendant’s association in minds of public with colour green relevant — Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, art 9(1)(b)(c)

  TRADE MARK — Revocation — “Genuine use” — Community figurative mark consisting of wordless logo — Mark only used with Community word mark superimposed over it forming further composite Community trade mark — Whether use of composite mark capable of constituting “genuine use” of wordless logo mark — Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, arts 15(1), 51(1)(a)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 9(1)(b) and (c), 15(1) and 51(1)(a) — Grounds for revocation — Definition of ‘genuine use’ — Trade mark used together with another trade mark or as part of a ‘compound trade mark’ — Colour or combination of colours in which a trade mark is used — Reputation

  1 Case considered

  3 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered
• In re Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd (Neumans LLP v Andronikou)

  02 Nov 2012 [2012] EWHC 3088 (Ch); [2013] Bus LR 374; [2013] 1 All ER 975; [2012] WLR (D) 310, Ch D (Morgan J)

  24 Jul 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 916; [2013] Bus LR 1152; [2014] 1 All ER 12; [2013] WLR (D) 301, CA

  10 Mar 2014 (appn dis) [2014] Bus LR 354, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive. Subsequent citations: 10.
  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Expenses of liquidation

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Winding up — Expenses of liquidation — Company instructing solicitors in connection with successful application to strike out winding up petition — Solicitors applying for company’s costs to be expense of liquidation — Whether company “person” appearing on petition — Proper approach to awarding company’s costs — Whether costs expense of liquidation — Insolvency Rules 1986, r 4.218(3)(h)

  INSOLVENCY — Administration — Expenses of administration — Solicitors acting for company in connection with winding up petition — Petition suspended on appointment of out of court administrators — Solicitors seeking payment of fees as expense of administration — Whether jurisdiction to order that company pay its own costs of administration out of its assets — Whether order creating necessary disbursement — Whether fees to be treated as administration costs and expenses — Whether court to exercise inherent jurisdiction to order payment of fees — Senior Courts Act 1981, s 51 (as substituted by Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s 4(1) and amended by Access to Justice Act 1999, s 31) — Insolvency Rules 1986, r 2.67(1)(f)

  14 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statute considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure (Football Association Premier League Ltd v AV Station plc, Football Association Premier League Ltd v Madden)

  24 Jun 2008 [2008] EWHC 1411 (Ch); [2008] FSR 32, Ch D (Kitchin J )

  13 Nov 2008 [2008] EWHC 2897 (Ch); [2009] 1 WLR 1603, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  04 Oct 2011 (Joined cases C-403/08 and C-429/08); EU:C:2011:631; [2012] Bus LR 1321; [2012] All ER (EC) 629; [2011] WLR (D) 286, ECJ

  03 Feb 2012 (No 2) [2012] EWHC 108 (Ch); [2012] FSR 366, Ch D (Kitchin J)

  20 Dec 2012 [2012] EWCA Civ 1708; [2013] Bus LR 866; [2012] WLR (D) 392, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive; 4 neutral. Subsequent citations: 99.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition

  EUROPEAN UNION — Satellite broadcasting — Broadcasting of football matches
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Joinder — Court referring questions to Court of Justice of the European Communities — Non-parties applying to be joined as claimants to national court proceedings in order to take part in preliminary reference procedure — Whether court having jurisdiction to join parties as claimants to national court proceedings for that purpose — Whether discretion to be exercised — CPR r 19.2(2)(a)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Free competition — Restriction or distortion of competition — Broadcasting — Claimant operating system of licences for broadcast of football matches — Each licensee granted exclusive right to broadcast matches in single member state — Each subscriber requiring decoder card to decrypt licensee’s satellite signal — Licensees prohibited under licence agreement from supplying decoder cards to persons outside member state for which licence granted — Businesses in United Kingdom using decoder cards obtained by subterfuge from foreign licensee — Whether cards “illicit device” — Whether national legislation prohibiting import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards contrary to freedom to provide services — Whether objective of protecting intellectual property rights justifying prohibition — Whether contractual prohibition on supplying decoder cards contrary to EU competition law — Whether transient fragments of protected works on television screen “acts of reproduction” — Whether acts exempt — Whether transmission of works “communication to the public” for which authorisation required — Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss 297, 298 — FEU Treaty, arts 56FEU, 101FEU — Council Directive 98/84/EC, arts 2, 3 — Council Directive 2001/29/EC, arts 2, 3, 5

  EUROPEAN UNION — Satellite broadcasting — Broadcasting of football matches — Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards — Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State — Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State — Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted — Copyright — Television broadcasting right — Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Restriction of competition by object — Protection of services based on conditional access — Illicit device — Directive 98/84/EC — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen — Exception to the reproduction right — Communication of works to the public in public houses — Directive 93/83/EEC

  9 Case(s) considered

• Rintisch v Eder

  25 Oct 2012 (Case C-553/11); EU:C:2012:671; [2013] Bus LR 318; [2012] WLR (D) 289, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 14.
  TRADE MARK — Revocation — “Genuine use”

  EUROPEAN UNION — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRADE MARK — Revocation — “Genuine use” — Claimant proprietor using only two of three registered trade marks of same distinctive character — Defendant registering trade mark similar to claimant’s — Claimant seeking cancellation of defendant’s trade mark relying on non-used mark — Whether claimant precluded from relying on use in form differing from mark as registered where different form itself registered as trade mark — Whether defensive trade mark excluded from protection — Council Directive 89/104/EEC, art 10(1)(2)(a)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 101 and 2a — Genuine use — Use in a form, itself registered as a trade mark, differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Temporal effects of a judgment

  1 Case considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 EU Enactment considered
• In re New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd (New Cap Reinsurance Corpn Ltd v Grant)

  15 Mar 2011 [2011] EWHC 677 (Ch), Ch D (Lewison J)

  09 Aug 2011 [2011] EWCA Civ 971; [2012] Ch 538; [2012] 2 WLR 1095; [2012] Bus LR 772; [2012] 1 All ER 755; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 1207; [2011] BCC 937; [2011] BPIR 1428; [2011] WLR (D) 274, CA (Mummery, Lloyd, McFarlane LJJ)

  24 Oct 2012 [2012] UKSC 46; [2013] 1 AC 236; [2012] 3 WLR 1019; [2013] Bus LR 1; [2013] 1 All ER 521; [2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 513; [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 615; [2012] BPIR 1204; The Times, 9 November 2012; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption JJSC, Lord Collins of Mapesbury)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; most recently considered: 2024. Subsequent citations: 81.
  INSOLVENCY — Liquidation — Foreign company
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INSOLVENCY — Liquidation — Foreign company — Liquidators of foreign companies seeking to enforce in England judgments of United States and Australian courts to recover moneys transferred to defendants before liquidation — Defendants claiming not to have been present in or submitted to jurisdiction of foreign courts — Whether judgments in personam — Whether ordinary rules for enforcing judgments in personam inapplicable to bankruptcy proceedings — Whether judgments enforceable at common law — Whether alternative method of enforcement through international assistance provisions of Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency — Statutory provisions allowing English court to “assist” Australian court in insolvency matter and for registration and enforcement of Australian judgment in “civil or commercial” matter — Whether either provision allowing English court to enforce Australian judgment against defendants — Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, ss 4, 6 — Insolvency Act 1986, s 426 — Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Australia) Order 1994, art 4(a) — Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, Sch 1, arts 2, 21

  4 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered

• Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v Peelaers

  11 Jul 2013 (Case C-657/11); EU:C:2013:516; [2013] Bus LR 1265; [2013] WLR (D) 275, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 2.
  CONSUMER PROTECTION — Advertising — Comparative and misleading advertising

  EUROPEAN UNION — Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC — Misleading and comparative advertising
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONSUMER PROTECTION — Advertising — Comparative and misleading advertising — Comparative and misleading advertising — Defendant registering and using website domain name incorporating abbreviation of claimant company’s name — Defendant using metatags in its website’s metadata corresponding to unique names given to claimant’s goods — Whether registration or use of domain name constituting “advertising” — Whether use of metatags constituting “advertising” — Council Directive 84/450/EEC, art 2 (as amended by Parliament and Council Directive 97/55/EC) — Parliament and Council Directive 2006/114/EC, art 2(a)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC — Misleading and comparative advertising — Definition of ‘advertising’ — Registration and use of a domain name — Use of metatags in a website’s metadata

  2 Case(s) considered

  2 Words & Phrases considered

  2 EU Enactments considered
• Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc

  23 May 2013 [2013] EWHC 1322 (TCC); [2013] Bus LR 1199; [2013] BLR 417; [2013] WLR (D) 211, QBD (Akenhead J)

  27 Nov 2013 [2013] EWCA Civ 1541; [2014] 1 WLR 1220; [2014] Bus LR 367; [2014] 1 EGLR 5; 151 ConLR 72; [2014] BLR 79; [2013] WLR (D) 463, CA

  15 May 2014 (appn all) [2014] 1 WLR 2218; [2014] Bus LR 711, SC(E)

  17 Jun 2015 [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] 1 WLR 2961; [2015] Bus LR 830; [2015] 4 All ER 482; [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 965; 160 ConLR 28; [2015] BLR 503; The Times, 22 June 2015; [2015] WLR (D) 261; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent considerations : 2 positive. Subsequent citations: 46.
  ADJUDICATION — Adjudicator’s decision — Finality

  BUILDING — Contract — Adjudication

  CONTRACT — Construction — Implied term
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  ADJUDICATION — Adjudicator’s decision — Finality — Reference of dispute under construction contract — Whether precluding litigation of same dispute — Whether adjudicator’s decision giving rise to separate cause of action with new limitation period — Whether term to be implied to that effect — Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, Sch, para 23(2)

  BUILDING — Contract — Adjudication — Reference to adjudicator of dispute under construction contract — Adjudicator making award — Whether adjudicator’s decision giving rise to separate cause of action for recovery of payment under award if dispute finally determined in favour of unsuccessful party — Whether term to be implied to that effect — Whether restitutionary right to recovery of any overpayment — Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 108 — Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, Sch, para 23(2)

  CONTRACT — Construction — Implied term — Adjudicator in construction contract dispute making award in defendant’s favour — Claimant making payment in accordance with award — Claim for repayment of sum paid — Defendant counterclaiming for damages in excess of amount awarded by adjudicator — Whether implied term in contract providing claimant with cause of action for repayment if dispute finally determined in his favour — Whether claimant’s cause of action accruing at date of payment made in accordance with adjudicator’s award — Whether defendant’s cause of action accruing at date of breach of contract or duty — Whether claim or counterclaim statute-barred — Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 108 — Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, Sch, para 23(2)

  5 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v Slovenská sporitel’ňa as

  07 Feb 2013 (Case C-68/12); EU:C:2013:71; [2013] Bus LR 1011; [2013] 4 CMLR 16; [2013] WLR (D) 52, ECJ

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  COMPETITION — Restriction or distortion of competition — Anti-competitive agreement

  EUROPEAN UNION — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreement concluded between a number of banks
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COMPETITION — Restriction or distortion of competition — Anti-competitive agreement — Three Slovak banks agreeing to stop doing business with Czech competitor — Czech competitor operating on Slovak market without licence — Slovak competition authority deciding agreement anti-competitive — Whether alleged illegality of competitor’s activities relevant in determining whether competition law infringed — Whether necessary, in order to find infringement, to demonstrate authorised conduct of representative of party to agreement — Conditions under which exception to prohibition to anti-competitive agreement applying — FEU Treaty, art 101(1)(3)FEU

  EUROPEAN UNION — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreement concluded between a number of banks — Competitor allegedly operating unlawfully on the market concerned — Effect — None

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

• In re Itau BBA International Ltd

  28 Jun 2012 [2012] EWHC 1783 (Ch); [2013] Bus LR 490; [2012] WLR (D) 187, Ch D (Henderson J)

  Subsequent citations: 3.
  COMPANY — Merger — Cross-border merger
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COMPANY — Merger — Cross-border merger — Regulations providing for cross-border merger by absorption where transferor company transferring all assets and liabilities to existing transferee company — Definition of “existing transferee company” — Whether excluding company formed for purposes of merger — Companies (Cross-Border Mergers) Regulations 2007, regs 2(2)(b), 3(1)

  1 Case considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered