Judicial Review of European Anti-Terrorism Measures—The Yusuf and Kadi Judgments of the Court of First Instance

Abstract:  In the Yusuf and Kadi judgments of 21 September 2005, the Court of First Instance endorsed the Community practice of sanctioning individuals blacklisted by the United Nations (UN). It accepted that the Community uses its competence to adopt state sanctions in combination with Article 308 EC to freeze the assets of civil persons, including European citizens. The court also reduced its jurisdiction to a basic scrutiny of whether jus cogens was violated. The Court of First Instance's decisions can be criticised on various grounds. First, the application of these Articles is contrary to the wording of the Treaty and the case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Further, as a consequence of the Court of First Instance's judgments, decisions of the UN Sanctions Committee become the supreme law within the EU, provided they meet the requirements of jus cogens as defined by the Court of First Instance. In addition, the individual is deprived of all fundamental rights guaranteed under European law.     

Implementing Community obligations in the realms of intellectual property

Legal context. The various Acts of Parliament governing UK intellectualproperty law have been significantly amended to give effectto Community law. This article discusses the powers used bythe Secretary of State to implement Community obligations andthe Court of Appeal's recent clarification of the scope of thosepowers. Key points. This article describes the concerns expressed bysome commentators on the scope of the powers under the EuropeanCommunities Act 1972 and the key cases on that scope, includingOakley v Animal. The article uses the implementation of performers'moral rights as an example of where going beyond strict Communityobligations is necessary. Practical significance. The article will be useful to anyoneconsidering the validity of the changes made to domestic law,including amendments to primary legislation, to implement Directivesor other Community obligations.     

Trade mark damages for infringement in multiple jurisdictions: a German court rules

A recent decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg inGermany provides useful guidance as to which law applies whentrade mark infringements are committed in several EU memberstates; the Court found an effective and workable solution thatenhances Community Trade Mark Regulation enforcement and strengthensits unitary character throughout the Community.     

Navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law

Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 14th Edition ByDavid Kitchin QC, David Llewelyn, James Mellor, Richard Meade,Tom Moody-Stuart, David Keeling; with Consultant Editor: TheRt. Hon Sir Robin Jacob; Sweet & Maxwell, 2005 Price: £255,Hardback, ISBN: 0421860804, pp. 1,350   Until recently, trade mark practitioners in the United Kingdomhad to make do with the 13th edition of Kerly, the 1st editionof The Modern Law of Trade Marks, or the CIPA/ITMA Handbookwhen navigating the rocky waters of trade mark law and practice.The first two of these texts     

A very short guide to an awful lot

Harmonised Trade Mark Law in Europe By Ulrich Hildebrandt 2005,Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag Price: 48, Hardback, ISBN: 3-452-25922-6. pp.150   Dr Ulrich Hildebrandt, a lawyer in private practice in Berlinand a lecturer at the Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf,has had an interesting and useful idea. In this book he hasproduced a compilation of the case law of the European Courtof Justice interpreting the Council Directive 89/104 to approximatethe laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (includingdecisions     

Common sense prevails in trade mark transfer dispute

The High Court of Justice has interpreted Article 17(2) of theCommunity Trade Mark Regulation, which provides that ‘[a]transfer of the whole of the undertaking shall include the transferof the Community trade mark’, in a commonsense mannerthat provides that the Community trade mark shall follow thetransferred business. The Court gave great weight to facts andcircumstances of the relevant transactions in giving effectto the transfer of the trade mark rights.     

I wonder if this is a Wunderbaum

The Court of First Instance, dismissing a Community trade markapplicant's appeal against the decision to allow an oppositionin part, affirms that the public's recognition of the opponent'searlier Community trade mark may be assessed in relation tothe degree of recognition achieved by that mark through itsclose similarity to an earlier national registered trade markbelonging to the opponent.     

Gaining confidence in the law of confidence

Legal context. The recent case of EPI v Symphony has left theUK law of confidentiality in an uncertain state: the extentto which recipients of confidential information may be permittedto ‘use’ mixtures of such information with publiclyavailable material remains unclear. The Court of Appeal in EPIfelt that it was hard to reconcile the principle that any claimin confidence must fail if the material in question is in thepublic domain with the ‘springboard’ doctrine; butis the distinction illusory? Key points. Issues raised in this case include considerationof what precisely is ‘use’ of confidential information,when mixed with public information, and whether a confider shoulddo more than rely on confidentiality obligations to protectthe fruits of his/her disclosures. This article asks how confidentialityobligations may be aligned with the control of statutory intellectualproperty rights. It considers whether the Court of Appeal inMarkem v Zipher has confused the issue and speculates as tohow far the general law of contract can assist the confider. Practical significance. Finally, this article discusses whichlegal tools will best assist the confider seeking to protectits intellectual property.     

Database rights' subsistence: under starter's orders

Legal context. The criteria for database rights' subsistenceset out in the Directive on the Legal Protection of Databasesare largely undefined. Guidance on their interpretation hasbeen provided by the ECJ and its guidance on qualifying investmentactivities was applied by the Court of Appeal in the BHB case. Key points. The article comments upon the guidance on the subsistencecriteria for database rights provided by the Advocate Generaland the ECJ in the BHB and Fixtures Marketing cases and analysesthe Court of Appeal's application of the production-processingdichotomy in the BHB case. It offers thoughts on thorny issuessuch as the avoidance of a double benefit for database developersin copyright and database right, the role of investments intechnology, and the effect of the production-processing dichotomyon the risk of monopolies over facts. Practical significance. Database developers seeking databaserights' protection should keep the subsistence criteria in mindwhen devising their processing arrangements, designing theirdatabases, and recording their investment activities associatedwith database development.     

Who controls the Naomi Campbell information flow? A practical analysis of the law of privacy

Legal context. The House of Lords held that the medical privacyof the glamorous supermodel Naomi Campbell was violated by publicationof details of her drug addiction treatment and a paparazzi picture.English law is developing under the influence of Article 8 (theright of privacy) and Article 10 (the right of freedom of expression)of the European Convention of Human Rights. The court explainedhow the action for breach of confidence protects privacy. So,who controls the Naomi Campbell information flow? Key points. Primarily, the courts control the flow of privateinformation. They do so through the cause of action of breachof confidence and remedies. In deciding liability, the courtsshould ask whether the benefit of publication is proportionateto the harm done by the invasion of privacy. To answer the question,they must balance the public interest in the right of privacyagainst the public interest in the right of freedom of expression.They may settle on a Reynolds type test by considering a numberof non-exhaustive factors. The article examines seven suggestedfactors and the remedies which can be deployed by the courts.Judgments from the English courts and the European Court ofHuman Rights are considered, including Campbell v MGN (HL),Douglas v Hello! (CA), McKennitt v Ash (HC), Peck v UK (ECtHR),Édition Plon v France (ECtHR), and Von Hannover v Germany(ECtHR). Practical significance. There are an increasing number of privacyclaims against the media. The article includes a checklist ofseven factors to help determine where the balance lies betweenprivacy and freedom of expression.     

Injunctive relief in US patent practice

Legal context. Injunctive relief is available in civil actionsin the United States. Patent litigation is no exception andthe US patent statute explicitly permits it. Because it is aneffective remedy, injunctive relief is commonly sought togetherwith the monetary (legal) remedies which are available to patentowners when enforcing patent rights. Key points. On 15 May 2006 the US Supreme Court in eBay, Incet al v MercExchange, LLC altered the prevailing practice sayingthat ‘the decision whether to grant or deny injunctiverelief rests within the equitable discretion of the districtcourts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistentwith traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes noless than in other cases governed by such standards’. Practical significance. This article will focus on the availabilityof permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions in lightof the Supreme Court's recent ruling in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange,LLC.     

Claim construction and the extent of patent protection: A comparative analysis of the Phillips en banc Federal Circuit decision

Legal context. The United Kingdom's House of Loads in Kirin-Amgenand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitin Phillips addressed similar issues with respect to the methodologyof claim interpretation and the fundamental rules and policiesfor determining the extent of patent protection. This articlewill review Phillips and Kirin-Amgen from the comparative lawperspective. It will compare the UK and US rules and patentpolicies with their German and Japanese counterparts, discussingthe bases for these differences and examining them from theperspective of patent policies, specifically with respect tofair protection and legal certainty. Key points. Despite the use of the same rule and methodology,legal commentators and patent professionals emphasize the differencesin the extent of patent protection in different jurisdictions.Such differences result from the availability of the doctrineof equivalents. For jurisdictions such as the UK, the US andJapan, where courts seldom apply the doctrine of equivalents,the differences result from the way in which the courts conductclaim construction. These courts use the perspective of a hypotheticalperson to support a broad or narrow claim construction, reflectingthe weight given to the competing patent policies. Practical significance. This article cites key cases for claimconstruction and the doctrine of equivalents in four major patentjurisdictions: the UK, the US, Germany and Japan. Knowledgeof the case law trends in these jurisdictions is essential fordrafting patents documents and enforcing patents.     

Is it a fair deal to tell tales on the tabloids?

Legal context. A recent High Court judgment, Fraser-WoodwardLimited v BBC and Brighter Pictures Limited, is of key interestto those that use or advise upon the use of copyright materialfor the purposes of criticism or review. Key points. This case involved the use of newspaper photographsof David and Victoria Beckham in a television documentary aboutthe relationship between celebrities and the press. The programmeillustrated its theme using screenshots of tabloid newspaperpages, which inevitably included a number of photographs. Theclaimant was the copyright holder in respect of a number ofthe photographs, and alleged that their reproduction in theTV programme was an infringement of copyright. The defendantssuccessfully relied upon the fair dealing and incidental inclusiondefences to copyright infringement. Practical significance. Although each fair dealing case willultimately turn on its own facts, Mann J gave a very usefulreview of the state of copyright law in this difficult area.     

Coexistence in Community trade mark disputes: conditions and implications

Legal context. A defence based on coexistence has no legal basisin the Trade Mark Directive or in the Community Trade Mark Regulation.Still, a practical approach to Community trade mark conflictsrequires attention to the situation in the marketplace whereconflicting marks may be shown to coexist without any currentconfusion or dilution being reported. Key points. Trade mark coexistence may sometimes be persuasive,the strict requirements being laid down by the Community courts.Through a detailed review of the case-law of the Community courtsand OHIM's Boards of Appeal, this article explains the conditionsfor and the consequences of proving the coexistence of the conflictingmarks in cases based on likelihood of confusion or dilution. Practical significance. Consideration must also be given tothe effects of third parties' neighbouring marks which may diminishan earlier mark's distinctive character. Accordingly, this articlefurther addresses the issue of whether the scope of protectionof a mark may be damaged by the use of later marks in the lightof the ECJ Judgment in the preliminary ruling Case C-145/05Levi Strauss v Casucci Spa.     

Trade mark use in transit: EU-phony or cacophony?

Legal context The present article discusses the opinion of Advocate-GeneralJacobs in Case C-405/05 Class International BV v Unilever NVand others, according to which trade mark owners cannot opposethe entry into the European Union of grey market non-Communitygoods placed in external transit, on the grounds of Article5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, or any equivalent provision,as such entry does not constitute trade mark use. Key points We examine the consistency of this approach withprior case law of the European Court of Justice, namely in theCommission v France, Rioglass, The Polo/Lauren and Rolex casesand draw a parallelism with Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003. Practical significance We conclude that trade mark owners shouldbe allowed to prohibit the placing in transit of goods whichwould infringe an intellectual property right under the lawof the transit country, unless the owner or consignor of thelitigious goods can undeniably prove that the goods are notdestined for the internal market. Stop press. At the end of the article the authors provide abrief analysis of the European Court of Justice's decision of18th October 2005 in this case.     

Community trade mark case law round-up 2006

Legal Context: This article looks at the important decisions of 2006 on theCommunity Trade Mark made by the Court of First Instance, theEuropean Court of Justice and the OHIM. These cases concernthe application of Council Regulation 40/94 on the CommunityTrade Mark, and also preliminary rulings from the European Courtof Justice on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/104(the Trade Mark Directive). Key Points: The volume of case law relating to Community trade marks, notto mention the variety of official languages in which the lawis interpreted, makes it almost impossible for even the conscientiouspractitioner to keep abreast with developments as they occur. This article provides an overview of the shifts in Communitytrade mark practice, in terms of not only the relatively accessiblesubstantive law but also the far more diffuse areas of procedurallaw and Office practice. In seeking to review and explain these shifts, the authors haveadopted a view of the case law that is functional rather thanphilosophical. In doing so, they lay bare the manner in whichthe institutions that administer and adjudicate Community trademark issues interrelate to one another. Practical Significance: Practitioners can quickly find the important decisions from2006 relating to particular articles of the Council Regulation40/94 on the Community Trade Mark. This article provides an overview of the most significant trademark cases decided in 2006 by the European Courts of Justiceand the OHIM Boards of Appeal. The article enables practitionersto access rapidly the key decisions of 2006. The cases discussed concern the application of Council Regulation40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘CTMR’), CommissionRegulation 2868/95 implementing the CTMR (‘CTMIR’),and Council Directive 89/104 (the ‘Trade Mark Directive’).