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), pp. 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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2005, pp. 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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2001, pp. 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), pp. 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), pp. 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 (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 University Press, 2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bergquist, Jenny, and Duncan Curley, ‘Shape Trade Marks and Fast-Moving Consumer Goods’, European Intellectual Property Review (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2008, pp. 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 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), pp. 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), pp. 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), pp. 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 (Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——, Llewelyn, David, and Aplin, Tanya Frances, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 8th ed (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), pp. 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 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 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), Palgrave Macmillan core statutes

——, Core Statutes on Intellectual Property, Fourth edition (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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2010, pp. 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), pp. 325–29, doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpr004

Fysh, Michael, and others, The Modern Law of Patents, 2nd ed (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 (n.d.), pp. 282–95, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00794.x

Garnett, K. M., and others, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 16th ed (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), pp. 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), pp. 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), pp. 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, and others, ‘Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings Is a Bad Idea’, European Intellectual Property Review, 30.5 (2008), pp. 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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2004, pp. 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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2004, pp. 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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 30.7 (2008), pp. 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, pp. 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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2007, pp. 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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2000, pp. 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 (Hart, 2013)

——, Alexander, Daniel, and Fisher, Matthew, Guidebook to Intellectual Property, 6th ed (Hart, 2013)

Jennifer Davis, ‘Why the United Kingdom Should Have a Law against Misappropriation’, Cambridge Law Journal, 69.3 (2010), pp. 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), pp. 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), pp. 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), pp. 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 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 (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 (Butterworths, 2000)

Laddie, Justice, ‘Copyright: Over-Strength, over-Regulated, over-Rated?’, European Intellectual Property Review, 18.5 (1996), pp. 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), pp. 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, Brussels, Belgium, 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, n.d.

Morcom, Christopher, The Modern Law of Trade Marks, 2nd ed (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), pp. 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), pp. 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), pp. 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 (n.d.), pp. 385–97, doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl038

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

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

Pila, J., ‘Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30.2 (n.d.), pp. 229–54, doi: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), pp. 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), pp. 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), Case Comment Edition, pp. 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), pp. 303–05 <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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2001, pp. 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 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), pp. 251–55

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

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

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

Stothers, Christopher, Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law (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 (100 Avenue Road Swiss Cottage London NW3 3PF), 2006, pp. 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 (Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)

Torremans, Paul and Holyoak, Jon, Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law, 7th ed (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 (Sweet & Maxwell, 2004), Intellectual property library

Waelde, Charlotte, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, 3rd ed (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 (n.d.), pp. 283–92, doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl005

Bibliography for LAWS3005: Intellectual Property Law BETA