ECJ allows service marks for retail trade and tells Nestle it can 'HAVE A BREAK' without having a Kit Kat

In response to a reference from the UK Court of Appeal, undertrade mark Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, the ECJdetermined that distinctive character may be acquired throughuse as part of an already registered trade mark.     

It may look or smell like a 'free ride' but it is not 'unfair competition'

‘Free-riding’ on another product's reputation andbenefiting from the efforts put into promoting it can amountto trade mark infringement, even without much apparent damageto that product, but the law of passing off does not supportclaims of unfair competition where no deception or misrepresentationis involved.     

Sony continues campaign against PlayStation grey market

A parallel importer infringes UK intellectual property rightsin electronic products by offering to sell those products inthe UK and Europe via a Hong Kong-based website, where the rights-holderintends such products for sale and distribution in Japan only;no defence of exhaustion of rights, or that the website hadnot targeted the UK or European customers, is available in thecircumstances.     

Should I stay or should I go?

Legal context: The European Patent Convention inherently allows parallel revocationproceedings to take place in the EPO and the domestic patentcourts. As a result, parties to UK patent proceedings frequentlyapply for a stay pending the outcome of proceedings in the EPO.There is commonly assumed to be a presumption in favour of thisstay, so long as it does not amount to an injustice. Key points: This article reviews the UK case law that has followed the Courtof Appeal decision in Kimberly-Clark, to see if this presumptionin favour of a stay is sustained. These cases show that, whendeciding whether to order a stay, judges perform a balancingexercise of a number of considerations. In practice it appearsthat these considerations easily topple the presumption. Practical significance: By providing a comparison of the considerations put before thecourts in the past, this article seeks to aid practitionersin judging those factors likely to affect the success of a stayapplication. It also highlights the lack of authority at appellatelevel on whether it is lawful for patent courts not to ordera stay.