Results: 7027

• Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd (formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd) (Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd (formerly Cadbury Holdings Ltd) v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, Société des produits Nestlé SA and Others v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd)

  15 Dec 2006 (Case T-112/13); EU:T:2016:735, EGC

  25 Jul 2018 (European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARGUES) intervening) (Joined Cases C-84/17P, C-85/17P and C-95/17P); (Joined Cases C-84/17 P, C-85/17 P and C-95/17 P); EU:C:2018:596; [2018] Bus LR 1848; [2018] WLR(D) 509, ECJ (President of Chamber L Bay Larsen, Judges J Malenovský, M Safjan, D Šváby, M Vilaras, Advocate General M Wathelet)

  Subsequent citations: 1.
  TRADE MARK — Registration — Distinctive character

  EUROPEAN UNION — Appeal — EU trade mark
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  TRADE MARK — Registration — Distinctive character — Distinctive character acquired through use — Mark not inherently having distinctive character registrable as European Union trade mark if character acquired through use — Whether necessary to establish acquired character throughout European Union — Whether evidence provided for certain national markets relevant to establishing acquisition of distinctive character in other markets — Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, art 7(1)(b)(3)

  EUROPEAN UNION — Appeal — EU trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-fingered chocolate bar — Appeal directed against the grounds — Inadmissibility — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) — Evidence of distinctive character acquired through use

  3 Case(s) considered

  1 EU Enactment considered

• O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd

  20 Oct 2006 [2006] EWHC 2562 (QB); [2007] 1 WLR 757, QBD (Teare J)

  09 Oct 2007 [2007] EWCA Civ 966; [2008] 1 WLR 1188; [2008] Bus LR 993, CA

  11 Jun 2008 (Ref to ECJ) [2008] UKHL 34; [2008] 4 All ER 881, HL(E)

  26 May 2010 [2010] UKSC 23; [2010] 1 WLR 1412; [2010] Bus LR 1381; [2010] 4 All ER 1; [2010] WLR (D) 137; Case details, SC(E)

  Subsequent citations: 9.
  PRACTICE — Parties — Substitution
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Parties — Substitution — Action brought against wrongly identified manufacturer — Whether power to allow substitution of defendant after expiry of long-stop ten-year period — Whether power existing where party wrongly identified — Whether substitution “necessary” — Whether substitution to be allowed — Limitation Act 1980, ss 11A(3) (as inserted by Consumer Protection Act 1987, s 6(6), Sch 1, para 1), 35(4)(5)(6) — CPR r 19.5(2)(3) — Council Directive 85/374/EEC, art 11

  PRACTICE — Parties — Substitution — Statutory right to sue producer of defective product — Right enacted in implementation of European Directive providing for long-stop period of ten years after product put into circulation — Claim alleging defective vaccine manufactured by French company but distributed by wholly-owned United Kingdom subsidiary — Action brought within period against distributor — Application after expiry of period for substitution of manufacturer as defendant — Court of Justice ruling that substitution of party outside limitation period permissible only when act of “putting into circulation of the product” determined by parent of wholly-owned supplier subsidiary sued within time limit — Whether determination in question act of transferring product to subsidiary or when to be put into circulation by supplier — Whether substitution to be allowed — Limitation Act 1980, s 35(4)(5)(6) — CPR r 19.5(2)(3) — Council Directive 85/374/EEC, art 11

  7 Case(s) considered

  3 Words & Phrases considered

  2 EU Enactments considered

  3 Statutes considered

  2 Statutory Instruments considered
• R (L) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis (Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening)

  19 Mar 2006 [2006] EWHC 482 (Admin), QBD (Munby J)

  01 Mar 2007 [2007] EWCA Civ 168; [2008] 1 WLR 681; [2007] 4 All ER 128, CA

  29 Oct 2009 [2009] UKSC 3; [2010] 1 AC 410; [2009] 3 WLR 1056; [2010] PTSR 245; [2010] 1 All ER 113; [2010] 1 FLR 643; [2009] WLR (D) 310; Case details, SC(E) (Lord Hope JSC, Lord Saville JSC, Lord Scott JSC, Lord Brown JSC, Lord Neuberger JSC)

  Subsequent considerations : 3 positive; 2 neutral; 2 negative. Subsequent citations: 80.
  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — Disclosure — Police

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to respect for private and family life — Disclosure of information
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — Disclosure — Police — Enhanced criminal record certificate — Duty of chief officer of police to disclose information he considered ought to be included in certificate because relevant for purpose of exempted question asked in course of considering applicant's suitability for position involving caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children — Whether information not relating to criminal or potentially criminal activity “relevant” — Police Act 1997, s 115(7)

  HUMAN RIGHTS — Right to respect for private and family life — Disclosure of information — Information collected and stored in police records — Statutory duty of chief officer of police to provide relevant information which he considered ought to be included in enhanced criminal record certificate in respect of applicant for employment involving contact with children or vulnerable adults — Whether applicant's right to respect for private life engaged — Whether need to protect children and vulnerable adults overriding applicant's right to respect for private life — Police Act 1997, s 115(7) — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 8(1)

  9 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• Customs and Excise Comrs v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (Oval 1742 Ltd, In re)

  [2007] EWCA Civ 1262; [2008] Bus LR 1213, CA

  06 Nov 2006 [2006] EWHC 2813 (Ch); [2007] Bus LR 474, Ch D

  COMPANY — Debenture — Fixed or floating charge
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  COMPANY — Debenture — Fixed or floating charge — Company selling business and assets — Company subsequently going into liquidation — Consideration for assets paid to debenture holder both before and after date of liquidation — Company's solicitors making undertakings to debenture holder in relation to payments — Debenture holder releasing charge after receiving payment — Whether preferential creditors payable in priority to debenture holder — Whether payments subject to floating charge — Whether debenture holder “taking possession” of property comprised in charge — Companies Act 1985, s 196 (as substituted by Insolvency Act 1986, s 439(1), Sch 13, Pt I) — Insolvency Act 1986, s 175

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered
• R (Government of the United States of America) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court (R (Central Examining Court, Criminal Court of the National Court, Madrid) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court)

  06 Sep 2006 [2006] EWHC 2256 (Admin); [2007] 1 WLR 1157; (2006) 156 NLJ 1440; The Times, 19 September 2006, DC (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ, Cresswell J)

  Subsequent considerations : 1 neutral; 1 negative. Subsequent citations: 83.
  EXTRADITION — Abuse of process — Disclosure
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EXTRADITION — Abuse of process — Disclosure — Requesting state withdrawing extradition request and reissuing under new statute — Requesting authority allegedly receiving assistance from British authorities in drafting arrest warrants — District judges ordering requesting authority and state to disclose documents to determine whether proceedings abuse of process — Whether proceedings governed by new statute — Whether abuse of process — Whether order for disclosure appropriate — Extradition Act 2003 — Extradition Act 2003 (Commencement and Savings) Order 2003 (as amended by Extradition Act 2003 (Commencement and Savings) (Amendment No 2) Order 2003), art 3

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered
• Smith Kline Beecham plc v Apotex Europe Ltd

  26 Jul 2005 [2005] EWHC 1655 (Ch); [2006] 1 WLR 872; [2006] 2 All ER 53, Ch D

  23 May 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 658; [2007] Ch 71; [2006] 3 WLR 1146; [2006] 4 All ER 1078, CA

  Subsequent considerations : 1 positive; 1 neutral. Subsequent citations: 26.
  INJUNCTION — Interlocutory — Undertaking as to damages
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  INJUNCTION — Interlocutory — Undertaking as to damages — Undertaking given to defendants — Whether benefit of undertakings impliedly extending to third parties affiliated to defendants — Whether defendants entitled to claim in restitution — Whether defendants entitled to claim in respect of third party losses — Whether defendants' pleaded claims in estoppel to be struck out — CPR Pt 25 Practice Direction, para 5.1(1)

  13 Case(s) considered

  1 Statutory Instrument considered

• R (W) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis

  20 Jul 2005 [2005] EWHC 1586 (Admin); [2005] 1 WLR 3706; [2005] 3 All ER 749, DC

  11 May 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 458; [2007] QB 399; [2006] 3 WLR 1098; [2006] 3 All ER 458, CA

  Subsequent citations: 4.
  POLICE — Powers — Dispersal of groups
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  POLICE — Powers — Dispersal of groups — Police Commissioner designating dispersal areas — Officers authorised to remove persons under 16 from areas — Whether power of removal permissive or coercive — Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, s 30(6)

  POLICE — Powers — Dispersal of groups — Police Commissioner designating dispersal areas — Officers authorised to “remove” persons under 16 — Whether power permissive or coercive — Whether power having effect of curfew — Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, s 30(6)

  2 Case(s) considered

  1 Words & Phrases considered

  2 Statutes considered

• Flett v Matheson

  09 Mar 2005 [2005] ICR 1134, EAT

  07 Feb 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 53; [2006] ICR 673, CA

  EMPLOYMENT — Contract of employment — Apprentice
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  EMPLOYMENT — Contract of employment — Apprentice — Modern apprenticeship agreement — Whether breach by employer giving rise to damages for loss of training — Appropriate notice of termination

  EMPLOYMENT — Contract of employment — Apprentice — Modern apprenticeship agreement — Whether contract of apprenticeship — Whether breach by employer giving rise to claim for damages for loss of training — Employment Tribunals Act 1996, s 42(1)

  6 Case(s) considered

  1 Statute considered

• R (Hirst) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

  22 Mar 2002 [2002] EWHC 602 (Admin); [2002] 1 WLR 2929, QBD

  06 Jul 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 945; [2006] 1 WLR 3083; [2006] 4 All ER 639, CA

  17 Jul 2007 (pet dis) [2007] 1 WLR 2021, HL(E)

  Subsequent citations: 11.
  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Media interviews

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Media interviews — Prisoner seeking permission to give telephone interviews to radio journalist concerning prison issues — Prison rule that permission to be given only in exceptional circumstances — Policy of Secretary of State on permission more restrictive than prison rule — Whether prison rule and policy lawful — Whether restriction on right to freedom of expression justified — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 10

  PRISONS — Prisoners’ rights — Release on licence — Revocation of discretionary life sentence prisoner's licence — Whether statutory scheme for recall to prison compatible with right to liberty — Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, s 32 — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 5

  3 Case(s) considered

  3 Statutes considered

• Armstrong v Times Newspapers Ltd (No 2)

  13 Jun 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 519; [2006] 1 WLR 2462, CA

  Subsequent citations: 8.
  PRACTICE — Trial — Libel action
  Expand

  Case index catchwords

  PRACTICE — Trial — Libel action — Complicated libel action to be tried by judge alone — Judge finding words complained of bearing range of defamatory meanings — Court's power to order different questions of fact to be tried by different mode of trial — Whether power to order question of particular defamatory meaning to be tried by jury — Supreme Court Act 1981, s 69(1)(4)

  1 Case considered

  1 Statute considered