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.
A convenience retailer has opted to install cameras (the “Facewatch” system) at a limited number of its English stores to reduce crime and protect its staff.
View blog
The Government appears set to announce plans on ‘living with Covid to restore freedom’. With the success of the retail and hospitality sector key to recovery, what protections will be on offer to tenants to deal with Covid-19 rent arrears?
Break rights have proved a fertile source of litigation over the last few years. More often than not, tenants have found themselves on the wrong end of the decisions. However, a Court of Appeal decision yesterday has bucked that trend.
One of the requirements for tenants to contract out of the security of tenure regime contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that they make a simple or statutory declaration before entering into the lease.
Specialist IP Counsel
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up