Case comments
Our members give you their insight into intellectual property cases. If you are looking for a specific case, you can search our full library.
Close contact causes concern
Personal relationships and unpleasant revelations were exposed in this case, says Olivia McBride. O/0526/24, Kerstin Reinwald v International Nutrition Researcher Center, Inc, UK IPO.
Big Mac scaled back
Louise Foster explores the judgment in the appeal brought by Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd against the Board of Appeal (BoA) decision. T-58/23, Supermac’s (Holdings) Ltd v EUIPO, General Court.
Short story settled
David Birchall explains why identical letters didn’t spell confusion. R 362/2024-2, SEVEN SPA v Jakob Simon International GmbH, EUIPO.
It ain't what they did
David Yeomans explores how infringement was found in this case. [2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC), AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd and another, IPEC.
Crowd control caution
Robert Dickens suggests parties take care when marks coexist in a popular sector. [2024] EWCA Civ 814, Lifestyle Equities CV and others v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Limited and others, Court of Appeal.
Chicken case run
Daniel Smith-Juggins delivers details of a London-based fast-food dispute. [2024] EWHC 1369 (IPEC), Morley’s (Fast Foods) Limited v Nanthakumar and others, High Court.
Corporate veil continues Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another
Aaron Wood argues that this decision leaves uncertainty around some important issues. [2024] UKSC 17, Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another, Supreme Court.
Pulling focus: Puma SE v EUIPO
One celebrity social post can mean self-disclosure, warns Sarah Husslein. T-647/22, Puma SE v EUIPO – Handelsmaatschappij J Van Hilst BV, General Court