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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1997. Web. <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. N.p., 1990. Web. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4JT8-8WR0-TXD8-61KW&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>.

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

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

---. N.p., 1990. Web. <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. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 267–293. Web. <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): 326–360. Web. <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): 312–349. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 312–349. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Print.

Benelux Court of Justice. Colgate-Palmolive BV v Koninklijke Distilleerderijen Erven Lucas Bols NV (1976) 7 IIC 420 (CLAERYN/KLAREIN). N.p., 1979. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Bergquist, Jenny, and Duncan Curley. ‘Shape Trade Marks and Fast-Moving Consumer Goods’. European Intellectual Property Review (2008): 17–24. Web. <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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://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>.

---. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://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). N.p., 2009. Web. <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>.

---. N.p., 2009. Web. <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. N.p., 2009. Web. <https://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. N.p., 2003. Web. <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>.

---. N.p., 2003. Web. <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. N.p., 2011. Web. <http://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/loreal-sa-v-ebay-international-ag-c-32409/>.

---. N.p., 2011. Web. <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. N.p., 2009. Web. <https://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. N.p., 2001. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1997. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1996. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2002. Web. <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. N.p., 2006. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1985. Web. <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. N.p., 1991. Web. <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. N.p., 2006. Web. <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. N.p., 2006. Web. <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. N.p., 1998. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1993. Web. <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. N.p., 2000. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Blackstone’s statutes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Christophe Geiger. ‘Trade Marks and Freedom of Expression - the Proportionality of Criticism’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 38.3 (2007): 317–327. Web. <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): 447–455. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 118–121. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Web. <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. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

---. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights. 8th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2013. Print.

Court: Chancery Division. Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1961] RPC 116. N.p., 1961. Web. <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. N.p., 1974. Web. <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. N.p., 1969. Web. <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. N.p., 1969. Web. <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. N.p., 1969. Web. <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. N.p., 1969. Web. <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. N.p., 1984. Web. <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. N.p., 2007. Web. <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. N.p., 1967. Web. <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. N.p., 1967. Web. <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. N.p., 1952. Web. <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. N.p., 2005. Web. <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. N.p., 1849. Web. <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. N.p., 1849. Web. <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. N.p., 2003. Web. <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. N.p., 1999. Web. <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. N.p., 1999. Web. <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. N.p., 1999. Web. <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. N.p., 1999. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 1911. Web. <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. N.p., 1901. Web. <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). N.p., 1915. Web. <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). N.p., 2003. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <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). N.p., 2003. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2008. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2010. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2011. Web. <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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2001. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1982. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1987. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <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. N.p., 1996. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1996. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2010. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2010. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2008. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1991. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1984. Web. <https://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). N.p., 2010. Web. <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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2009. Web. <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). N.p., 2000. Web. <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). N.p., 2000. Web. <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. N.p., 2007. Web. <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). N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1993. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1993. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1993. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1977. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1997. Web. <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. N.p., 2006. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1953. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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’. Trade Mark Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

Douglas and Zeta Jones v Hello! Ltd [2005] 4 All ER 128. N.p., 2005. Web. <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 core statutes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

---. Core Statutes on Intellectual Property. Fourth edition. Palgrave Macmillan core statutes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.

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

---. N.p., 2007. Web. <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. N.p., 1979. Web. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4K4W-PD40-TXD8-60FB&csi=296986&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>.

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

---. N.p., 1979. Web. <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): 247–251. Web. <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. N.p., 2011. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1974. Web. <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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2003. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2003. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1998. Web. <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. N.p., 1998. Web. <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. N.p., 1998. Web. <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. N.p., 1995. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1998. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2000. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2000. Web. <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. N.p., 2002. Web. <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. N.p., 2002. Web. <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. N.p., 1997. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1997. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1974. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2001. Web. <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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2002. Web. <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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <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. N.p., 1999. Web. <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. N.p., 1999. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1999. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2009. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2009. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2009. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2008. Web. <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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2011. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2010. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1990. Web. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4CSP-49F0-TWP1-6012&csi=274668&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>.

---. N.p., 1990. Web. <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): 325–329. Web.

Fysh, Michael et al. The Modern Law of Patents. 2nd ed. London: LexisNexis, 2010. Print.

Gangjee, Dev, and Robert Burrell. ‘Because You’re Worth It: L’Oreal and the Prohibition on Free Riding’. Modern Law Review 73.2 282–295. Web.

Garnett, K. M. et al. Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. 16th ed. Intellectual property library. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011. Print.

Gavin Phillipson. ‘Transforming Breach of Confidence? Towards a Common Law Right of Privacy under the Human Rights Act’. Modern Law Review 66.5 (2003): 726–758. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 474–479. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 513–516. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2010. Web. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=7Y4Y-47W0-Y96Y-H1TV&csi=274665&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t>.

---. N.p., 2010. Web. <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. N.p., 2003. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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 et al. ‘Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings Is a Bad Idea’. European Intellectual Property Review 30.5 (2008): 174–181. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Web. <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. Web. <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): 286–293. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2009. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1976. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1964. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1964. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2003. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2008. Web. <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. N.p., 2004. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1990. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1990. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1896. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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). N.p., 2003. Web. <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): 401–420. Web. <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): 117–147. Web. <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). N.p., 2009. Web. <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. Web. <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-law.htm>.

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

---. ‘Trade Marks Act 1994’. 1994. Web. <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): 117–126. Web. <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. Print.

---. Guidebook to Intellectual Property. 6th ed. Oxford: Hart, 2013. Print.

Jennifer Davis. ‘Why the United Kingdom Should Have a Law against Misappropriation’. Cambridge Law Journal 69.3 (2010): 561–581. Web. <https://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. Web. <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): 831–843. Web. <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): 184–187. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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 EC law library. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Web. <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. Intellectual property library. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005. Print.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (Case C-299/99) - [2003] Ch 159. N.p., 2002. Web. <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. Print.

Laddie, Justice. ‘Copyright: Over-Strength, over-Regulated, over-Rated?’ European Intellectual Property Review 18.5 (1996): 253–260. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 653–656. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2004. Web. <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>.

---. N.p., 2004. Web. <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. N.p., 2003. Web. <https://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’. 2011. Web. <http://www.epip.eu/conferences/epip06/papers/Parallel%20Session%20Papers/>.

Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux (Case C-425/98 ). N.p., 2000. Web. <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. N.p., 1983. Web. <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. N.p., 2001. Web. <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. N.p., 1997. Web. <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. pag. Print.

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

Mothercare v Penguin Books [1988] R.P.C. 113. N.p., 1988. Web. <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): 628–656. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?docguid=IE9F6C360B8A611E08E89E51884D3FC3D&crumb-action=reset>.

---. N.p., 2012. Web. <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): 267–293. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2000. Web. <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. N.p., 2013. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 443–445. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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 1.6 385–397. Web.

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

---. Trade Mark Law: A Practical Anatomy. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.

Pila, J. ‘Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30.2 229–254. Web.

Privy Council. Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 193 (PC). N.p., 1981. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1989. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2008. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2008. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2012. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Web. <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): 122–123. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 339–343. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 303–305. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. Web. <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): n. pag. Web. <http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fswales&collection=journals>.

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

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

Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH (C-495/07). N.p., 2009. Web. <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): 251–255. Print.

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

Spence, Michael. Intellectual Property. Clarendon law series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

---. Intellectual Property. Clarendon law series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

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

Supreme Court. *Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2009] FSR 2. N.p., 2009. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2009. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): 276–281. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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): n. pag. Web. <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. Print.

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

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

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

Trade Marks Registry (Appointed Person). Dennis Woodman v French Connection [2007] RPC 1. N.p., 2007. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2005. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 2002. Web. <https://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/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. N.p., 1916. Web. <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>.

---. N.p., 1916. Web. <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>.

---. N.p., 1916. Web. <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. Intellectual property library. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004. Print.

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

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

---. N.p., 1900. Web. <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 1.4 283–292. Web.

Bibliography for LAWS3005: Intellectual Property Law BETA