In L’Oreal SA & Ors v Ebay International AG & Ors [2009] EWHC 1094 (Ch), the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (HCJ) held that Ebay Europe, the second Defendant, is not jointly liable for infringement with the fourth to tenth Defendants. The question of Ebay’s primary liability was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) along with questions relating to: the sale of testers, dramming products and unboxed products infringement, is advertising in the UK the same as ‘putting on the market’ pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Trade Marks Directive, does Ebay Europe have a defence under the E-Commerce Directive and what is the scope of relief required from the national courts.
Archive for the ‘European Union’ Category
Posted in 
EU Court of First Instance Rejects Anheuser Busch’s Application for “Budweiser” Mark in Europe
In Anheuser Busch v. OHIM (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)), the European Union’s Court of First Instance upheld a March 2007 decision of the OHIM Board of Appeal that had allowed an opposition by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Budvar)a Czech brewery that markets beer in Europe under the name “Budweiser”, to Anheuser Busch’s attempt to register in the EU the “Budweiser” trademark it holds and uses in North America. The Court held that the evidence of Budvar’s existing mark could be considered despite its late submission to the Board, and that there was sufficient evidence of its use to make Anheuser Busch’s mark unregistrable.
(more…)
European Patent Office’s Enlarged Board Of Appeal Find Embryonic Stem Cell Claims Requiring Destruction Of Embryo Offend Commercial Exploitation Of Human Embryos Prohibition
In an interlocutory referral [PDF] of law from the Technical Board of Appeal, the European Patent Office’s Enlarged Board of Appeal upheld the July 2004 decision of the Examining Division rejecting European patent application EP19960903521 [PDF] entitled Primate Embryonic Stem Cells under Article 53(a) and Rule 28(c) [formerly 23d(c)] of the European Patent Convention.
The invention covered “A cell culture comprising primate embryonic stem cells” which, at the time, required the use and destruction of human embryos as starting material. This was found to be contrary to the Article 53(a) of the EPC which provided subject matter exceptions for “inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ‘ordre public’ or morality” and more specifically Rule 28(c) which prohibited inventions for “uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes.”
|