Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
A strong Court of Appeal (with 2 acknowledged experts in intellectual property), has ruled in favour of Samsung over Apple in the battle of the tablets. The Court has ‘dispersed the fog’ that the cloud of litigation created over the alleged infringement of design rights and has clarified the issues in dispute; given valuable advice on the characteristics of the informed user and when a publicity order should be made.
The first instance decision of HHJ Birss QC became notorious in the media after his comparison between ‘cool’ (Apple) and ‘not as cool’ (Samsung). The judgment of the Californian court awarded Apple substantial damages for patent infringement. Finally, the German court granted a pan European interim injunction in respect of the 7.7 Samsung product.
The court held that ‘real commercial uncertainty’ arose causing damage to Samsung’s business and justifying the ruling for a publicity order, requiring Apple to inform the market that Samsung’s product does not infringe its registered designs throughout the European Union.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the wording of a service charge clause precluded a tenant from challenging the sums claimed by a landlord.
View blog
Break rights have proved a fertile source of litigation over the last few years. Courts have consistently required strict compliance with the terms of those rights.
Judgement has been handed down for the seminal case of Cardtronics UK Ltd and others (Respondents) v Sykes and others (Valuation Officers) (Appellants) [2020] UKSC 21.
Following an MP debate on 5 November 2019, the government is due to release long-awaited guidance as to how it intends to protect workers in the retail industry against violence, harassment and abuse.
Specialist IP Counsel
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up