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?
Last week we posted that Mars and The FA were considering legal action against Nestlé .
This week a study by Nielsen has revealed that Nestle are not the only ones taking advantage of “ambush marketing” during the lead up to the World Cup. The likes of Nike and Carlsberg appear to got the upper hand over their bitter rivals but its not all bad news. Nielsen also found that FIFA partner Coca-Cola was found to have had five times the level of mentions around the World Cup than Pepsi did.
With the raft of brands that are currently and will continue to engage in ambush marketing, is it time for sponsors to start taking advantage of their alignment to the World Cup by being more creative, since “owning” the tournament is clearly not enough?
Would money be better spent on savvy marketing strategies rather than on potentially fruitless attempts to try and go after arguably more creative (ambush) marketeers?
As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.
View blog
From 6 April 2022, right to work checks on all migrant or settled prospective employees must be online and checks on British or Irish nationals will be manual (free) or digital (charged for).
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
A recent decision by the Supreme Court in Shanks v Unilever PLC has supported the right for employees to receive compensation for patented inventions if the invention is of ‘outstanding benefit’.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up