Bibliography for LAWS3005: Intellectual Property Law

Advocate Generals Opinion, *Case C-292/00 Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff SA v Gofkid Ltd [2003] ECR I 389, [2002] ETMR 99, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I94E230C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior SA v Evora BV [1997] ECR I-1603, 1997 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I19C708B0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

AG v Guardian Newspapers [1990] AC 109, 1990 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4JT8-8WR0-TXD8-61KW&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 1990 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4JT8-8WR0-TXD8-61KW&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 1990 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4JT8-8WR0-TXD8-61KW&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 1990 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4JT8-8WR0-TXD8-61KW&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Alexandra Sims, ‘“A Shift in the Centre of Gravity”: The Dangers of Protecting Privacy through Breach of Confidence’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 1 (2005), 27–51 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I84951700E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Andreas Rahmatian, ‘Music and Creativity as Perceived by Copyright Law’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2005, 267–93 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/IBD9BC3D0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Andrew Griffiths, ‘The Impact of the Global Appreciation Approach on the Boundaries of Trade Mark Protection’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2001, 326–60 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I80DC7BD0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, ‘The Trade Mark Monopoly: An Analysis of the Core Zone of Absolute Protection under Art.5(1)(a)’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3 (2007), 312–49 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I943CD4A0407811DCBD0B8974948FEEE1&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, ‘The Trade Mark Monopoly: An Analysis of the Core Zone of Absolute Protection under Art.5(1)(a)’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3 (2007), 312–49 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I943CD4A0407811DCBD0B8974948FEEE1&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Bainbridge, David I., Intellectual Property, 9th ed (Harlow: Pearson, 2012)

Benelux Court of Justice, Colgate-Palmolive BV v Koninklijke Distilleerderijen Erven Lucas Bols NV (1976) 7 IIC 420 (CLAERYN/KLAREIN), 1979 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I89876421E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Bently, Lionel and Sherman, Brad, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

———, Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)

Bergquist, Jenny, and Duncan Curley, ‘Shape Trade Marks and Fast-Moving Consumer Goods’, European Intellectual Property Review, 2008, 17–24 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I4605FB80A38411DCA386F3C91B230F0D/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Case C-48/05 Adam Opel v Autec [2007] ETMR 33, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IDB584410131811DCBED6E2488C9C88D7&crumb-action=reset>

———, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IDB584410131811DCBED6E2488C9C88D7&crumb-action=reset>

Case C-59/08 Copad SA v Christian Dior Couture [2009] FSR 859 (22), 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE642516054A011DE99E188287EC57E09/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE642516054A011DE99E188287EC57E09/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

*Case C-252/07 Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Ltd [2009] ETMR 13, 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE1F1D190EF4B11DDABD59220C1484B66&crumb-action=reset>

*Case C-291/00 LTJ Diffusion v Sadas Vertbaudet, [2003] ECR I-2799, [2003] ETMR 83, 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE810E610E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE810E610E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Case C-324/09 L’Oréal v eBay International [2011] RPC 27, 2011 <http://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/loreal-sa-v-ebay-international-ag-c-32409/>

———, 2011 <http://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/loreal-sa-v-ebay-international-ag-c-32409/>

Case T-387/06 Inter-Ikea Systems BV v OHIM (IDEA/IKEA) [2009] ETMR 17, 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE1F37F40EF4B11DDABD59220C1484B66&crumb-action=reset>

Chancery Division, Antiquesportfolio.Com Plc v. Rodney Fitch & Company Limited [2001] ECDR 5, 2001 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5E91C580E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Brighton v Jones [2005] FSR 16, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7A77F3F0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Creation Records v News Group Newspapers [1997] EMLR 444, 1997 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8FF0A060E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, De Maudsley v Palumbo [1996] FSR 447, 1996 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I95BB52B0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Hadley v Kemp [1999] EMLR 589, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB88DD011E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2355, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICAC470E1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2355, 2002 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICAC470E1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Julius Sämann Ltd v Tetrosyl Ltd [2006] EWHC 529, 2006 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID12EBE91E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Lawson v Dundas, 1985 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4PN7-RW10-TXX5-50FC&csi=316560&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14, 1991 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I0D783F20E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC 14, 2006 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I114796A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC 14, 2006 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I114796A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Robin Ray v Classic FM [1998] FSR 622, 1998 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I848D79E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, RxWorks Ltd v Hunter [2007] EWHC 3061, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I93AF3FC0BDAD11DCAF01C913343759EA&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Waterman (Pete) Ltd v CBS United Kingdom Ltd [1993] EMLR 27, 1993 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I1E2EA890E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Chancery Division (Patents Court), Glaxo Group Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd (No 2) [2000] FSR 529, 2000 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAF9E1000E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Christie, Andrew and Gare, Stephen, Blackstone’s Statutes on Intellectual Property, 11th ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), Blackstone’s statutes

Christophe Geiger, ‘Trade Marks and Freedom of Expression - the Proportionality of Criticism’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 38.3 (2007), 317–27 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2BE7DFB030C111DC94868C93E4A893F7/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Christopher Wadlow, ‘Passing off at the Crossroads Again: A Review Article for Hazel Carty, An Analysis of the Economic Torts’, European Intellectual Property Review, 33.7 (2011), 447–55 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I4CF8A4E0881111E0B370896DBAF0B922&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Claire Howell, ‘Trade Marks: What Constitutes “Genuine Use”? Laboratoires Goemar SA v La Mer Technology’, European Intellectual Property Review, 28.2 (2006), 118–21 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF32C710E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

‘Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988’, 1988 <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents>

Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, and Aplin, Tanya Frances, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

———, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

Court: Chancery Division, Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1961] RPC 116, 1961 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FGP0-TWW4-2113&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, British Northrop Ltd v Texteam Blackburn Ltd [1974] RPC 57, 1974 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDW0-TWW4-20KN&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41, 1969 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDF0-TWW4-205K&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41, 1969 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDF0-TWW4-205K&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41, 1969 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDF0-TWW4-205K&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Vine Products Ltd v Mackenzie & Co Ltd [1969] RPC 1, 1969 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXN-BPC0-TWW4-219M&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Court: Court of Appeal, Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik, Budweiser Case [1984] FSR 413, 1984 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXV-YY50-TWW4-21H2&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV [2007] EWCA Civ 968, [2008] RPC 196, 2007 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4PWD-GRH0-TWW4-21F9&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Seager v Copydex Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 415, [1967] 1 WLR 923, 1967 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDF0-TWW4-204J&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Seager v Copydex Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 415, [1967] 1 WLR 923, 1967 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDF0-TWW4-204J&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Stevenson (or Stephenson) Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans (1952) 1 TLR 101, 1952 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-YJ40-TWW4-20NH&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Court: Court of First Instance, EC, Les Editions Albert Rene v OHIM (Case T-336/03) [2005] ECR II-4667, 2005 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4HF5-CB60-TWW4-215W&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Court: English court pre-dating November 1874, Albert (Prince) v Strange (1849) 18 LJ Ch 120, 1 H & Tw 1, 1849 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDY0-TWW4-20YP&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Albert (Prince) v Strange (1849) 18 LJ Ch 120, 1 H & Tw 1, 1849 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FDY0-TWW4-20YP&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Court: European Court of Justice, *Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc & Rado Uhren AG v Deutsches Patentund Markenamt (Cases C-53/01, 54/01 & 55/01) [2003] ECR-I 3161, [2003] RPC 803, 2003 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXV-47S0-TWW4-200W&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587, 1999 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXR-N2K0-TWW4-2006&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587, 1999 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXR-N2K0-TWW4-2006&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587, 1999 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXR-N2K0-TWW4-2006&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587, 1999 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXR-N2K0-TWW4-2006&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Court: House of Lords, *Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UK HL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, 2004 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-JR30-TWW4-21G6&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UK HL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, 2004 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-JR30-TWW4-21G6&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UK HL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, 2004 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-JR30-TWW4-21G6&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, Edge (William) & Sons Ltd v William Niccolls & Sons Ltd [1911] AC 693, 1911 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXH-FG30-TWW4-21GN&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, IRC v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217, 1901 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXV-M7D0-TWW4-20B3&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, *Spalding (A.G.) & Bros v A.W. Gamage Ltd and Benetfink & Co Ltd (1915) 32 RPC 273 (HL), 1915 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXR-6310-TWW4-20NS&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Court of Appeal (Civil Division), *Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed [2003] ETMR 73 (CA), 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I676D8860E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Baigent & Leigh v Random House [2007] EWCA Civ 247, [2007] FSR 24, 2007 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I372331B0DDA411DB89E08052F2CA7868&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Beckingham v Hodgens [2003] ECDR 6 (Ch D); [2003] EMLR 18 (CA), 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I72DD8AB0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward [2008] EWCA Civ 83, [2008] ETMR 36, 2008 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA56805E0E10B11DC9179F6B281EA371D&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Diageo v Intercontinental Brands [2010] ETMR 57, 2010 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IACA34D609C3411DF92A7D3B03F532893&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Donald v Ntuli [2011] 1 WLR 294, 2011 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IF83A68B0F1E011DF8DDEF4C61C812980/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] 4 All ER 128; [2005] 3 WLR 881, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9A3764F0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.1) QB 967, [2001] 2 WLR 992, 2001 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9A3457B1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch 119, 1982 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA4F75120E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117, 1987 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA52E8DC1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Griggs Group Ltd v Evans [2005] FSR 31, 2005 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2E831BE1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Harrods v Harrodian School [1996] RPC 697, 1996 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBAF3FAA0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Harrods v Harrodian School [1996] RPC 697, 1996 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBAF3FAA0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] RPC 16, 2010 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9139A39021C211DFA41BF0B6F8159676&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] RPC 16, 2010 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9139A39021C211DFA41BF0B6F8159676&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] Ch 57, [2007] 3 WLR 222, 2008 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA4EFF380924111DB8D3DDAA0606E23F1&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62, 1991 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID1CFE090E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417, 1984 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE12C1131E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&crumb-action=reset>

———, L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2010] ETMR 47 (Court of Appeal), 2010 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I0CE81031654811DFADCD9988CD311A96/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters and Frankau [2007] ETMR 54, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I925173E0163D11DCA571A55D57CB3653&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Murray v Express Newspapers Plc [2009] Ch 481, 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IF9C8BCC01CBA11DDB566FF76D66A7C56/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No 2) [1999] FSR 79, [2000] FSR 363 (CA), 2000 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I108E7FD0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No 2) [1999] FSR 79, [2000] FSR 363 (CA), 2000 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I108E7FD0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2007] RPC 25, 2007 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0B2036B0D2AC11DB97F6EEA8CBB93415&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2007] RPC 25 (CA), 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0B2036B0D2AC11DB97F6EEA8CBB93415&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Reed Executive Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] ETMR 56, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8510B3A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Sawkins v Hyperion Records [2005] RPC 32; [2005] 1 WLR 3281, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I98427D51E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Sawkins v Hyperion Records [2005] RPC 32; [2005] 1 WLR 3281, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I98427D51E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd [1993] FSR 641, 1993 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC7A6E7C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd [1993] FSR 641, 1993 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC7A6E7C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd [1993] FSR 641, 1993 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC7A6E7C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 2 All ER 751; [1977] 1 WLR 760, 1977 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I09982950E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, ZYX Music GmbH v King [1995] 3 All ER 1, [1997] 2 All ER 129, 1997 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I124B7CA0E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Court of First Instance, Eden SARL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) [2006] (T-305/04) ETMR 14, 2006 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9F9A2DB1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Court of Session (Outer House), John Haig & Co Ltd v Forth Blending Co Ltd (1953) 70 RPC 259, 1953 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICD7279E0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

David Booton, ‘The Informal Acquisition of Copyright’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 1 (2011), 28–49 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID6711520345311E0BC47AA7F74E9E5E3&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Davis, J., ‘The Need to Leave Free for Others to Use and the Trade Mark Common’, in Trade Mark Use (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)

Douglas and Zeta Jones v Hello! Ltd [2005] 4 All ER 128, 2005 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4H7S-JMY0-TWP1-605P&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Dowie-Whybrow, Margaret, Core Statutes on Intellectual Property, Fourth edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), Palgrave Macmillan core statutes

———, Core Statutes on Intellectual Property, Fourth edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), Palgrave Macmillan core statutes

Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (Case C-321/03) - [2007] ETMR 34, 2007 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=55Y7-JST1-DYBP-N4FG&csi=274665&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 2007 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=55Y7-JST1-DYBP-N4FG&csi=274665&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

*Erven Warnink vs Townend [1979] A.C. 731, 1979 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4K4W-PD40-TXD8-60FB&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 1979 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4K4W-PD40-TXD8-60FB&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 1979 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4K4W-PD40-TXD8-60FB&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Estelle Derclaye, ‘Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08): Wonderful or Worrisome? The Impact of the ECJ Ruling in Infopaq on UK Copyright Law’, European Intellectual Property Review, 2010, 247–51 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IB72704A030AC11DF9C83BB18AACF6BDB/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

European Court of Human Rights, Mosley v United Kingdom [2012] EMLR 1, 2011 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB01A71007C4711E09FE9952F1280B01E&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Von Hannover v Germany (59320/00) (2004) 40 EHRR 1, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE52AC120003611DBB3E7976425AFED86/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Von Hannover v Germany (59320/00) (2004) 40 EHRR 1, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE52AC120003611DBB3E7976425AFED86/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Axel Springer v Germany [2012] EMLR 15, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC1FFA770881A11E1B306BD6814F5898C&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) [2012] EMLR 16, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0F55C7C0881B11E1B306BD6814F5898C&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

European Court of Justice, Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 at 852, [1974] 2 CMLR 436, 1974 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2937F9D0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Case C-2/00 Hölterhoff v Ulrich Freiesleben [2002] ETMR 917, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC3117690E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C–16/03 Peak Holding v Axolin-Elinor [2004] ECR I–11313, [2005] Ch 261, [2005] 2 WLR 650, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I1AF74B50E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I82095C80E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I82095C80E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I82095C80E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I82095C80E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I82095C80E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-40/01 Ansul BV and Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (Minimax) [2003] ECR I-2439, [2003] ETMR 85, 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5E814AC0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-63/97 BMW v Deenik [1999] ECR I-905, [1999] 1 CMLR 1099, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I708BF991E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-143/00 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer I”) [2002] ECR I-3759, [2002] All ER (EC) 581, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7643E730E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-206/01 Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed, [2002] ECR I-10273, [2003] ETMR 19 (ECJ), 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I676B8C90E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-251/95 SABEL v Puma [1997] ECR I-6191, [1998] ETMR 1, 1998 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I97093A00E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-251/95 SABEL v Puma [1997] ECR I-6191, [1998] ETMR 1, 1998 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I97093A00E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-251/95 SABEL v Puma [1997] ECR I-6191, [1998] ETMR 1, 1998 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I97093A00E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-317/91 Deutsche Renault AG v Audi AG [1993] ECR I-6227, [1995] 1 CMLR 461, 1995 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I98789DF1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-355/96 Silhouette International Schmied GmbH v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1998] ECR I-4799, [1998] 2 CMLR 953, 1998 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA8607750E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-375/97 General Motors v Yplon [2000] RPC 572, 2000 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IADFD5850E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-379/97 Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v Paranova A/S ("Paranova II”)[1999] ECR I-6927, [2000] 1 CMLR 51, 2000 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I1E835840E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Case C-414/99 Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Ltd [2001] ECR I-8691, [2002] Ch 109, [2002] 1 CMLR 1, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I123387D0E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Case C-414/99 Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Ltd [2001] ECR I-8691, [2002] Ch 109, [2002] 1 CMLR 1, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I123387D0E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Case C-427/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova [1996] ECR I-3457, [1997] 1 CMLR 1151, 1997 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7A9F5210E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-427/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova [1996] ECR I-3457, [1997] 1 CMLR 1151, 1997 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7A9F5210E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Cases C-15 & 16/74 Centrafarm v Sterling Drug, Centrafarm v Winthrop [1974] ECR 1147, 1183, [1974] 2 CMLR 480, 1974 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I839F8CE0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Koninklijke Philips v Remington (Case C-299/99) [2002] ECR I-5475, [2002] ETMR 81, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID535C7E0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Koninklijke Philips v Remington (Case C-299/99) [2002] ECR I-5475, [2002] ETMR 81, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID535C7E0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *OHIM v Wm Wrigley Junior Co (DOUBLEMINT) (Case C-191/01 P) [2004] RPC 327, [2004] 1 WLR 1728, 2004 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1233F270E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *OHIM v Wm Wrigley Junior Co (DOUBLEMINT) (Case C-191/01 P) [2004] RPC 327, [2004] 1 WLR 1728, 2004 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1233F270E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (Case C-299/99) [2002] ECR I-5475, [2002] All ER (EC) 634, [2002] 2 CMLR 1329, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID535C7E0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Procter & Gamble Company v OHIM (BABY DRY) (Case C-383/99 P) [2001] ECR I-6251, [2002] Ch 82, 2001 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I291D6CF0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00) [2002] ECR I-11737; [2003] ETMR 37, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA8480D50E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00) [2002] ECR I-11737; [2003] ETMR 37, 2002 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA8480D50E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00) [2002] ECR I-11737; [2003] ETMR 37, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA8480D50E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber (Cases C-108/97 and 109/97) [1999] ECR I-2779, [2000] 2 WLR 205, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I08B1E800E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber (Cases C-108/97 and 109/97) [1999] ECR I-2779, [2000] 2 WLR 205, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I08B1E800E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, *Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber (Cases C-108/97 and 109/97) [1999] ECR I-2779, [2000] 2 WLR 205, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I08B1E800E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

European Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), Case C-100/02 Gerolsteiner & Brunnen GmbH & Co. v Putsch GmbH [2004] ETMR 40, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE5EB230E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-100/02 Gerolsteiner & Brunnen GmbH & Co. v Putsch GmbH [2004] ETMR 40, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE5EB230E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-173/98 Sebago Inc and Ancienne Maison Dubois v GB Unic SA [1999] ETMR 681, 1999 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9F7990E1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

European Court of Justice (First Chamber), Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks & Spencer plc [2012] ETMR 1, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAF651490EAF111E0A275A3ECCA23837C&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks & Spencer plc [2012] ETMR 1, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAF651490EAF111E0A275A3ECCA23837C&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-487/07 L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2009] ECR I-5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 55 (ECJ), 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8F8A7AF0652B11DE983DB30BB4733E30&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-487/07 L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2009] ECR I-5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 55 (ECJ), 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8F8A7AF0652B11DE983DB30BB4733E30&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-487/07 L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2009] ECR I-5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 55 (ECJ), 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8F8A7AF0652B11DE983DB30BB4733E30&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-533/06 O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd [2008] ETMR 55, 2008 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I341987E03CF711DDA8E4E8EFC9CB01FD&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Case C-17/06 Céline v Céline SA [2007] ECR I-7041, [2007] ETMR 80, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9A9597108F5111DC9C26E9F078BBCACB&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-17/06 Céline v Céline SA [2007] ECR I-7041, [2007] ETMR 80, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9A9597108F5111DC9C26E9F078BBCACB&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-17/06 Céline v Céline SA [2007] ECR I-7041, [2007] ETMR 80, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9A9597108F5111DC9C26E9F078BBCACB&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-324/09 L’Oreal SA v eBay International AG [2011] ETMR 53, 2011 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7F3F9920B27F11E0818793785D117705&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Lego Juris v OHIM (Case C-48/09 P) [2010] ETMR 63, 2010 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IACB54990F69B11DFB99CA99461512FB4&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

European Court of Justice (Second Chamber), *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID3E9D8F035AB11DCB9EEC1DD635D0C90&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID3E9D8F035AB11DCB9EEC1DD635D0C90&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID3E9D8F035AB11DCB9EEC1DD635D0C90&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID3E9D8F035AB11DCB9EEC1DD635D0C90&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID3E9D8F035AB11DCB9EEC1DD635D0C90&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I980E9C10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I980E9C10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I980E9C10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I980E9C10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

European Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber), *Case C-408/01 Adidas-Salomon AG & Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd [2004] ETMR 10, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5343F131E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-408/01 Adidas-Salomon AG & Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd [2004] ETMR 10, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5343F131E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Cases C-473/01 P and C-474/01 P) [2004] ETMR 89, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I291ECC80E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist H.O.D.N. Memex (Case C-283/01) [2004] ETMR 33, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA7E1AA60E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

European Court of Justice (Third Chamber), *Case 228/03 Gillette Company v LA-Laboratories Ltd Case [2005] ETMR 67, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAEF59B00E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case 228/03 Gillette Company v LA-Laboratories Ltd Case [2005] ETMR 67, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAEF59B00E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH, [2012] ECDR 6, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB8007600633511E19B1EDECF6B79D5EA&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Case C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH, [2012] ECDR 6, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB8007600633511E19B1EDECF6B79D5EA&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-246/05 Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung & Co KG [2007] ETMR 61, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I853010504BAC11DC869CF358B7B5BFD4&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Case C-259/02 La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA [2004] ETMR 47, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID645B140E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Express Newspapers Plc v News (UK) Ltd and Others - [1990] 3 All ER 376, 1990 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-49F0-TWP1-6012&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 1990 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-49F0-TWP1-6012&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Fhima, I. S., ‘The Court of Justice’s Protection of the Advertising Function of Trade Marks: An (Almost) Sceptical Analysis’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 6.5 (2011), 325–29 <https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpr004>

Fysh, Michael, Roughton, Ashley, Johnson, Phillip, and Cook, Trevor M., The Modern Law of Patents, 2nd ed (London: LexisNexis, 2010)

Gangjee, Dev, and Robert Burrell, ‘Because You’re Worth It: L’Oreal and the Prohibition on Free Riding’, Modern Law Review, 73.2, 282–95 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00794.x>

Garnett, K. M., Davies, Gillian, Harbottle, Gwilym, Copinger, Walter Arthur, and Skone James, E. P., Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 16th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011), Intellectual property library

Gavin Phillipson, ‘Transforming Breach of Confidence? Towards a Common Law Right of Privacy under the Human Rights Act’, Modern Law Review, 66.5 (2003), 726–58 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAB06B7B0E71311DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Gill Grassie, ‘Parallel Imports and Trade Marks - Where Are We? Part 1’, European Intellectual Property Review, 28.9 (2006), 474–79 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8FFA6D10298311DB9C38979DE63AE30C&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, ‘Parallel Imports and Trade Marks: Part 2: The Repackaging Cases’, European Intellectual Property Review, 28.10 (2006), 513–16 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB3C89E9042A811DBBF32AB60305756BD&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Google France SARL and Another v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and Another Google France SARL v Centre National de Recherche En Relations Humaines (CNRRH) SARL and Others - [2010] All ER (D) 23 (Apr), 2010 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=7Y4Y-47W0-Y96Y-H1TV&csi=274665&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 2010 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=7Y4Y-47W0-Y96Y-H1TV&csi=274665&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

H1 Appeal from the High Court (Chancery Division), Arsenal v Reed [2003] RPC 39, 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I676D8860E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Helberger, Natali, Nicole Dufft, Stef Van Gompel, and P. Bernt Hugenholtz, ‘Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings Is a Bad Idea’, European Intellectual Property Review, 30.5 (2008), 174–81 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD3B9C10003511DDA46EB425E5C11227&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Helen Norman, ‘Time to Blow the Whistle on Trade Mark Use?’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2004, 1–34 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I80E07370E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, ‘Time to Blow the Whistle on Trade Mark Use?’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2004, 1–34 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I80E07370E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

‘Honestly, Neither Celine nor Gillette Is Defensible!’, European Intellectual Property Review, 30.7 (2008), 286–93 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I734626B0286811DD8EF9F64D79DCEEA7&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

House of Lords, Fisher v Brooker [2007] EMLR 9; [2007] FSR 12 (Ch D); [2008] EMLR 13 (CA); [2009] 1 WLR 1764 (HL), 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC84829907D7D11DE8013EC861A6B9FF1&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64, 1976 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE3160A0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273, 1964 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID65CE2C1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273, 1964 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID65CE2C1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer Plc [2001] Ch 257 (CA); [2003] 1 AC 551 (HL), 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0CD54860E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, HL, 2008 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I35E233B0F92311DB9045877B5F5EF663&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *R v Johnstone [2004] ETMR 2, 2004 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I50612720E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Reckitt & Colman v Borden [1990] RPC 341; [1990] 1 WLR 491, 1990 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I84D5CD80E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Reckitt & Colman v Borden [1990] RPC 341; [1990] 1 WLR 491, 1990 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I84D5CD80E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199, 1896 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I84E3FE50E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I915A7420E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Wainwright v Home Office (AC 406), 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IEF2EAFD0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Ilanah Simon, ‘How Does “Essential Function” Doctrine Drive European Mark Trade Law?’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2005, 401–20 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2F701380E71311DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, ‘Nominative Use and Honest Practices in Industrial and Commercial Matters - a Very European History’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2007, 117–47 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I7237CE70FF5311DB890AD2939FCE442A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

*Infopaq International v Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-5/08), 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IEE144860B3B611DE8E61D7238152E802/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Intellectual Property Office, ‘Trade Marks Act 1994’, 1994 <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-law.htm>

———, ‘Trade Marks Act 1994’, 1994 <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-law.htm>

———, ‘Trade Marks Act 1994’, 1994 <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-law.htm>

Irini A. Stamatoudi, ‘“Joy” for the Claimant: Can a Film Also Be Protected as a Dramatic Work?’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2000, 117–26 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7FA49810E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Jacob, Robin, Alexander, Daniel, and Fisher, Matthew, Guidebook to Intellectual Property, 6th ed (Oxford: Hart, 2013)

———, Guidebook to Intellectual Property, 6th ed (Oxford: Hart, 2013)

Jennifer Davis, ‘Why the United Kingdom Should Have a Law against Misappropriation’, Cambridge Law Journal, 69.3 (2010), 561–81 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE598DCA20CB111E0AFBDF1383E1E3727&crumb-action=reset>

Jeremy Phillips, ‘Trade Mark Law and the Need to Keep Free’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 36.4 (2005), 389–401 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2F74CE71E71311DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Jochen Pagenberg., ‘Trade Dress and the Three Dimensional Mark - the Neglected Children of Trade Mark Law?’, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 35.7 (2004), 831–43 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2F83C290E71311DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Joshi, Rajiv, and Belinda Isaac, ‘What Does Identical Mean?’, European Intellectual Property Review, 27.5 (2005), 184–87 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF4A94D0E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Keeling, David T., Intellectual Property Rights in EU Law: Vol. 1: Free Movement and Competition Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), Oxford EC law library <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198259183.001.0001>

Kitchin, David, Kerly, Duncan Mackenzie, and Jacob, Robin, Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 14th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005), Intellectual property library

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (Case C-299/99) - [2003] Ch 159, 2002 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T19962953981&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&resultsUrlKey=0_T19962953983&backKey=20_T19962953984&csi=296988&docNo=10&scrollToPosition=1710>

Laddie, Hugh, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs (London: Butterworths, 2000)

Laddie, Justice, ‘Copyright: Over-Strength, over-Regulated, over-Rated?’, European Intellectual Property Review, 18.5 (1996), 253–60 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID04F5AA0E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Liakatou, Vlotina, and Spyros Maniatis, ‘Lego - Building a European Concept of Functionality’, European Intellectual Property Review, 32.12 (2010), 653–56 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB6FD09E1EED711DFB0EED922B45E4A88&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

*Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Case C-104/01) - [2004] Ch 83, 2004 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T19962934462&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&resultsUrlKey=0_T19962934467&backKey=20_T19962934468&csi=296988&docNo=2&scrollToPosition=114>

———, 2004 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T19962934462&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&resultsUrlKey=0_T19962934467&backKey=20_T19962934468&csi=296988&docNo=2&scrollToPosition=114>

*Libertel v Benelux Merkenbureau (Case C-104/01) [2003] ECR I-3793 [2003] ETMR 63, 2003 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE0B97940E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&crumb-action=reset>

M. Senftlebel, ‘Bringing EU Trademark Law Back Into Shape – Lessons to Learn from Keyword Advertising’ (6th Annual Conference of the EPIP Association: Fine-Tuning IPR Debates (8 September 2011), 2011) <http://www.epip.eu/conferences/epip06/papers/Parallel%20Session%20Papers/>

Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux (Case C-425/98 ), 2000 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IEE0DCBF0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32, 1983 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IF91A2A70E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Merz & Krell (Case C-517/99) [2001] ECR I-6959, 2001 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IF9600D10E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&crumb-action=reset>

Metix (UK) Ltd v G.H. Maughan (Plastics) Ltd [1997] FSR 718, 1997 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IF98129A0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

‘Module Outline & Reading for TERM 1’

Morcom, Christopher, The Modern Law of Trade Marks, 2nd ed (London: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005)

Mothercare v Penguin Books [1988] R.P.C. 113, 1988 <http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/content/105/6/113.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr>

N.A. Moreham, ‘Privacy in the Common Law: A Doctrinal and Theoretical Analysis’, Law Quarterly Review, 121.Oct (2005), 628–56 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC8D72D0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

*Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2012] RPC 1, 2012 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE9F6C360B8A611E08E89E51884D3FC3D&crumb-action=reset>

———, 2012 <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE9F6C360B8A611E08E89E51884D3FC3D&crumb-action=reset>

Nigel P. Gravells, ‘Authorship and Originality: The Persistent Influence of Walter v Lane’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 3 (2007), 267–93 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9439A050407811DCBD0B8974948FEEE1&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Opposition Division), Zanella SNC’s Community Trade Mark Application (B.42053) [2000] ETMR 69, 2000 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I120C29B0E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Patents County Court, Redd Solicitors LLP v Red Legal Ltd [2012] EWPCC 54, [2013] ETMR 13, 2013 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I4ADB2B204A5111E2AFC5ADE6B0249198&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd [2012] FSR 9, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID00513403D7F11E18561D2A3A042DC41&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Patricia Loughlan, ‘Descriptive Trade Marks, Fair Use and Consumer Confusion’, European Intellectual Property Review, 27.12 (2005), 443–45 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF386C60E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Phillips, J., ‘Strong Trade Marks and the Likelihood of Confusion in European Law’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 1.6, 385–97 <https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpl038>

Phillips, Jeremy, Trade Mark Law: A Practical Anatomy ([Oxford]: Oxford University Press, 2003)

———, Trade Mark Law: A Practical Anatomy ([Oxford]: Oxford University Press, 2003)

Pila, J., ‘Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30.2, 229–54 <https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqq009>

Privy Council, Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 193 (PC), 1981 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I806103B0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Privy Council (Hong Kong), *Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc [1989] AC 217, 1989 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICA553451E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Queen’s Bench Division, Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EMLR 20, 2008 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID55150E05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20, 2008 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID55150E05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355, 2012 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0CBAF4D06D9111E1945FEE25069F94B3&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Rachael Mulheron, ‘A Potential Framework for Privacy? A Reply to Hello!’, Modern Law Review, 69.5 (2006), 679–713 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I2211DAB03F8411DBBD6EEC2A69B1B2FF/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Rebecca Baines, ‘Copyright in Commissioned Works: A Cause for Uncertainty’, European Intellectual Property Review, 27.3 (2005), 122–23 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF37D020E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Richard Arnold, ‘Confidence in Exclusives: Douglas v Hello! In the House of Lords’, European Intellectual Property Review, 29.8 (2007), 339–43 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5257ADB12B5311DCA0A5F0FD76367280&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, ‘Copyright in Photographs: A Case for Reform’, European Intellectual Property Review, 27.9 (2005), 303–5 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF37F730E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, ‘Joy: A Reply’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2001, 10–21 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/I7FA50D40E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Ricketson, S., ‘Reaping without Sowing: Unfair Competition and Intellectual Property Rights in Anglo-Australian Law’, University of New South Wales Law Journal, 7.1 (1984) <http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fswales&collection=journals>

Roughton, A., ‘Permitted Infringing Use: The Scope of Defences to an Infringement Action’, in Trade Mark Use (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)

Schechter, F., ‘The Rational Basis of Trade Mark Protection’, Harvard Law Review, 40 (1927) <http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fhlr&collection=journals>

Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH (C-495/07), 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IED6BA7D01B5111DEAFD6ED60DC0DB1FC/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Silver, Ingrid, and Phil Lee, ‘Protecting Your Rights – Copyright in Computer Games: Nova Productions and Mazooma Games Ltd’, European Intellectual Property Review, 29.6 (2007), 251–55

Spence, M., ‘Justifying Copyright’, in Dear Images: Art, Copyright and Culture (London: Ridinghouse:, ICA, 2002), pp. 389–403

Spence, Michael, Intellectual Property (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Clarendon law series

———, Intellectual Property (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Clarendon law series

Stothers, Christopher, Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law (Oxford: Hart, 2007)

Supreme Court, *Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2009] FSR 2, 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0C305000B84211E09CEF84D8174DB20E&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, *Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2009] FSR 2, 2009 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0C305000B84211E09CEF84D8174DB20E&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Tania S.L. Cheng, ‘Does Copyright Law Confer a Monopoly over Unpreserved Cows?’, European Intellectual Property Review, 2006, 276–81 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF290310E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Tanya Aplin, ‘The Development of the Action for Breach of Confidence in a Post-HRA Era’, Intellectual Property Quarterly, 19 (2007) <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I22D01BE0A82211DB895EE0FA6D085F91&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

Terrell, Thomas and Thorley, Simon, Terrell on the Law of Patents, 16th ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)

Torremans, Paul and Holyoak, Jon, Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law, 7th ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)

‘Trade Marks Directive 2008’, 2008 <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5206>

‘———’, 2008 <http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5206>

Trade Marks Registry (Appointed Person), Dennis Woodman v French Connection [2007] RPC 1, 2007 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAC0ACD2032B511DB8591EC6659BE7CBE&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Re Basic Trademark SA’s Trade Mark Application [2005] RPC 25, 2005 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I701AE840E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

———, Re Ghazilian’s Trade Mark Application [2002] RPC 33, 2002 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE7CC180E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth>

University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601, 1916 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE619B480E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, 1916 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE619B480E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

———, 1916 <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth&returnto=https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE619B480E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true>

Wadlow, Christopher, The Law of Passing-off: Unfair Competition by Misrepresentation, 3rd ed (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004), Intellectual property library

Waelde, Charlotte, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, 3rd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)

Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539, 1900 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-YK00-TWW4-2116&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

———, 1900 <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4FXM-YK00-TWW4-2116&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>

Zemer, L., ‘Contribution and Collaboration in Joint Authorship: Too Many Misconceptions’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 1.4, 283–92 <https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpl005>

Bibliography for LAWS3005: Intellectual Property Law BETA