1.
Module Outline & Reading for TERM 1.
2.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
3.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
4.
Christie, Andrew, Gare, Stephen: Blackstone’s statutes on intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012).
5.
Dowie-Whybrow, M.: Core statutes on intellectual property. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2013).
6.
Jacob, Robin, Alexander, Daniel, Fisher, Matthew: Guidebook to intellectual property. Hart, Oxford (2013).
7.
Spence, Michael: Intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007).
8.
Waelde, Charlotte: Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2014).
9.
Bainbridge, David I.: Intellectual property. Pearson, Harlow (2012).
10.
Torremans, Paul, Holyoak, Jon: Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013).
11.
Terrell, Thomas, Thorley, Simon: Terrell on the law of patents. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2006).
12.
Fysh, Michael, Roughton, Ashley, Johnson, Phillip, Cook, Trevor M.: The modern law of patents. LexisNexis, London (2010).
13.
Kitchin, David, Kerly, Duncan Mackenzie, Jacob, Robin: Kerly’s law of trade marks and trade names. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2005).
14.
Morcom, Christopher: The modern law of trade marks. LexisNexis Butterworths, London (2005).
15.
Garnett, K. M., Davies, Gillian, Harbottle, Gwilym, Copinger, Walter Arthur, Skone James, E. P.: Copinger and Skone James on copyright. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2011).
16.
Laddie, Hugh: The modern law of copyright and designs. Butterworths, London (2000).
17.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
18.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
19.
Jacob, Robin, Alexander, Daniel, Fisher, Matthew: Guidebook to intellectual property. Hart, Oxford (2013).
20.
Spence, Michael: Intellectual property. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007).
21.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
22.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
23.
Richard Arnold: Confidence in exclusives: Douglas v Hello! in the House of Lords. European Intellectual Property Review. 29, 339–343 (2007).
24.
Tanya Aplin: The development of the action for breach of confidence in a post-HRA era. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 19, (2007).
25.
Gavin Phillipson: Transforming breach of confidence? Towards a common law right of privacy under the Human Rights Act. Modern Law Review. 66, 726–758 (2003).
26.
Rachael Mulheron: A potential framework for privacy? A reply to Hello! Modern Law Review. 69, 679–713 (2006).
27.
Alexandra Sims: ‘A shift in the centre of gravity’: the dangers of protecting privacy through breach of confidence. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 1, 27–51 (2005).
28.
N.A. Moreham: Privacy in the common law: a doctrinal and theoretical analysis. Law Quarterly Review. 121, 628–656 (2005).
29.
Court: English court pre-dating November 1874: Albert (Prince) v Strange (1849) 18 LJ Ch 120, 1 H & Tw 1. (1849).
30.
Court: Court of Appeal: Seager v Copydex Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 415, [1967] 1 WLR 923. (1967).
31.
Court: House of Lords: *Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UK HL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457. (2004).
32.
Court: Chancery Division: *Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41. (1969).
33.
Court: Court of Appeal: Seager v Copydex Ltd [1967] 2 All ER 415, [1967] 1 WLR 923. (1967).
34.
Court: Chancery Division: *Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41. (1969).
35.
AG v Guardian Newspapers [1990] AC 109. (1990).
36.
Queen’s Bench Division: Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EMLR 20. (2008).
37.
Chancery Division: De Maudsley v Palumbo [1996] FSR 447. (1996).
38.
Court: English court pre-dating November 1874: Albert (Prince) v Strange (1849) 18 LJ Ch 120, 1 H & Tw 1. (1849).
39.
AG v Guardian Newspapers [1990] AC 109. (1990).
40.
Court: Chancery Division: *Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41. (1969).
41.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): *Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1987] Ch 117. (1987).
42.
AG v Guardian Newspapers [1990] AC 109. (1990).
43.
AG v Guardian Newspapers [1990] AC 109. (1990).
44.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Woodward v Hutchins [1977] 2 All ER 751; [1977] 1 WLR 760. (1977).
45.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] 4 All ER 128; [2005] 3 WLR 881. (2005).
46.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417. (1984).
47.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62. (1991).
48.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.1) QB 967, [2001] 2 WLR 992. (2001).
49.
House of Lords: OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, HL. (2008).
50.
House of Lords: Wainwright v Home Office (AC 406). (2003).
51.
European Court of Human Rights: *Von Hannover v Germany (59320/00) (2004) 40 EHRR 1. (2004).
52.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2008] Ch 57, [2007] 3 WLR 222. (2008).
53.
Court: House of Lords: *Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UK HL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457. (2004).
54.
House of Lords: S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2005] 1 AC 593. (2005).
55.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): *Murray v Express Newspapers Plc [2009] Ch 481. (2009).
56.
Queen’s Bench Division: *Spelman v Express Newspapers [2012] EWHC 355. (2012).
57.
European Court of Human Rights: *Von Hannover v Germany (59320/00) (2004) 40 EHRR 1. (2004).
58.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Donald v Ntuli [2011] 1 WLR 294. (2011).
59.
European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber): Axel Springer v Germany [2012] EMLR 15. (2012).
60.
European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber): Von Hannover v Germany (No 2) [2012] EMLR 16. (2012).
61.
Queen’s Bench Division: *Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20. (2008).
62.
European Court of Human Rights: Mosley v United Kingdom [2012] EMLR 1. (2011).
63.
Court: House of Lords: *Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UK HL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457. (2004).
64.
Douglas and Zeta Jones v Hello! Ltd [2005] 4 All ER 128. (2005).
65.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
66.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
67.
Wadlow, Christopher: The law of passing-off: unfair competition by misrepresentation. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2004).
68.
Ricketson, S.: Reaping without sowing: Unfair Competition and Intellectual Property Rights in Anglo-Australian Law. University of New South Wales Law Journal. 7, (1984).
69.
Jennifer Davis: Why the United Kingdom should have a law against misappropriation. Cambridge Law Journal. 69, 561–581 (2010).
70.
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, 447–455 (2011).
71.
*Erven Warnink vs Townend [1979] A.C. 731. (1979).
72.
House of Lords: *Reckitt & Colman v Borden [1990] RPC 341; [1990] 1 WLR 491. (1990).
73.
Court: House of Lords: IRC v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217. (1901).
74.
*Erven Warnink vs Townend [1979] A.C. 731. (1979).
75.
House of Lords: *Reddaway v Banham [1896] AC 199. (1896).
76.
Court: House of Lords: Edge (William) & Sons Ltd v William Niccolls & Sons Ltd [1911] AC 693. (1911).
77.
Court of Session (Outer House): John Haig & Co Ltd v Forth Blending Co Ltd (1953) 70 RPC 259. (1953).
78.
House of Lords: *Reckitt & Colman v Borden [1990] RPC 341; [1990] 1 WLR 491. (1990).
79.
Privy Council: Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 193 (PC). (1981).
80.
Court: Chancery Division: Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1961] RPC 116. (1961).
81.
Court: Chancery Division: Vine Products Ltd v Mackenzie & Co Ltd [1969] RPC 1. (1969).
82.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Diageo v Intercontinental Brands [2010] ETMR 57. (2010).
83.
Court: Court of Appeal: Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik, Budweiser Case [1984] FSR 413. (1984).
84.
Chancery Division: Waterman (Pete) Ltd v CBS United Kingdom Ltd [1993] EMLR 27. (1993).
85.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] RPC 16. (2010).
86.
Court: House of Lords: *Spalding (A.G.) & Bros v A.W. Gamage Ltd and Benetfink & Co Ltd (1915) 32 RPC 273 (HL). (1915).
87.
Chancery Division: *Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2355. (2002).
88.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd [1993] FSR 641. (1993).
89.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Harrods v Harrodian School [1996] RPC 697. (1996).
90.
H1 Appeal from the High Court (Chancery Division): Arsenal v Reed [2003] RPC 39. (2003).
91.
Court: Court of Appeal: *L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV [2007] EWCA Civ 968, [2008] RPC 196. (2007).
92.
*Erven Warnink vs Townend [1979] A.C. 731. (1979).
93.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd [1993] FSR 641. (1993).
94.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd [1993] FSR 641. (1993).
95.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Harrods v Harrodian School [1996] RPC 697. (1996).
96.
Chancery Division: *Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2355. (2002).
97.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
98.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
99.
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, 831–843 (2004).
100.
Bergquist, J., Curley, D.: Shape trade marks and fast-moving consumer goods. European Intellectual Property Review. 17–24 (2008).
101.
Liakatou, V., Maniatis, S.: Lego - building a European concept of functionality. European Intellectual Property Review. 32, 653–656 (2010).
102.
Jeremy Phillips: Trade mark law and the need to keep free. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 36, 389–401 (2005).
103.
Davis, J.: The Need to Leave Free for Others to Use and the Trade Mark Common. In: Trade mark use. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005).
104.
Patricia Loughlan: Descriptive trade marks, fair use and consumer confusion. European Intellectual Property Review. 27, 443–445 (2005).
105.
Intellectual Property Office: Trade Marks Act 1994, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-law.htm, (1994).
106.
Trade Marks Directive 2008, http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5206, (2008).
107.
Court: European Court of Justice: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587. (1999).
108.
Intellectual Property Office: Trade Marks Act 1994, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-law.htm, (1994).
109.
Trade Marks Directive 2008, http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5206, (2008).
110.
European Court of Justice: *Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00) [2002] ECR I-11737; [2003] ETMR 37. (2002).
111.
Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (Case C-321/03) - [2007] ETMR 34. (2007).
112.
European Court of Justice: *Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00) [2002] ECR I-11737; [2003] ETMR 37. (2002).
113.
European Court of Justice: *Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-273/00) [2002] ECR I-11737; [2003] ETMR 37. (2002).
114.
Court of First Instance: Eden SARL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) [2006] (T-305/04) ETMR 14. (2006).
115.
European Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber): Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist H.O.D.N. Memex (Case C-283/01) [2004] ETMR 33. (2004).
116.
*Libertel v Benelux Merkenbureau (Case C-104/01) [2003] ECR I-3793 [2003] ETMR 63. (2003).
117.
European Court of Justice: *Koninklijke Philips v Remington (Case C-299/99) [2002] ECR I-5475, [2002] ETMR 81. (2002).
118.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546. (2005).
119.
*Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Case C-104/01) - [2004] Ch 83. (2004).
120.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546. (2005).
121.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (Case C-299/99) - [2003] Ch 159. (2002).
122.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546. (2005).
123.
*Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Case C-104/01) - [2004] Ch 83. (2004).
124.
European Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber): Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Cases C-473/01 P and C-474/01 P) [2004] ETMR 89. (2004).
125.
Court: European Court of Justice: *Linde AG, Winward Industries Inc & Rado Uhren AG v Deutsches Patentund Markenamt (Cases C-53/01, 54/01 & 55/01) [2003] ECR-I 3161, [2003] RPC 803. (2003).
126.
European Court of Justice: *OHIM v Wm Wrigley Junior Co (DOUBLEMINT) (Case C-191/01 P) [2004] RPC 327, [2004] 1 WLR 1728. (2004).
127.
European Court of Justice: Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber (Cases C-108/97 and 109/97) [1999] ECR I-2779, [2000] 2 WLR 205. (1999).
128.
European Court of Justice: Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber (Cases C-108/97 and 109/97) [1999] ECR I-2779, [2000] 2 WLR 205. (1999).
129.
European Court of Justice: Procter & Gamble Company v OHIM (BABY DRY) (Case C-383/99 P) [2001] ECR I-6251, [2002] Ch 82. (2001).
130.
European Court of Justice: *OHIM v Wm Wrigley Junior Co (DOUBLEMINT) (Case C-191/01 P) [2004] RPC 327, [2004] 1 WLR 1728. (2004).
131.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-329/02) (SAT.2), [2005] 1 CMLR 1546. (2005).
132.
Merz & Krell (Case C-517/99) [2001] ECR I-6959. (2001).
133.
European Court of Justice: *Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions und Vertriebs GmbH v Boots und Segelzubehor Walter Huber (Cases C-108/97 and 109/97) [1999] ECR I-2779, [2000] 2 WLR 205. (1999).
134.
European Court of Justice: Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd (Case C-299/99) [2002] ECR I-5475, [2002] All ER (EC) 634, [2002] 2 CMLR 1329. (2002).
135.
Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks (Case C-321/03) - [2007] ETMR 34. (2007).
136.
European Court of Justice: *Koninklijke Philips v Remington (Case C-299/99) [2002] ECR I-5475, [2002] ETMR 81. (2002).
137.
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber): *Lego Juris v OHIM (Case C-48/09 P) [2010] ETMR 63. (2010).
138.
Trade Marks Registry (Appointed Person): Re Ghazilian’s Trade Mark Application [2002] RPC 33. (2002).
139.
Trade Marks Registry (Appointed Person): Re Basic Trademark SA’s Trade Mark Application [2005] RPC 25. (2005).
140.
Trade Marks Registry (Appointed Person): Dennis Woodman v French Connection [2007] RPC 1. (2007).
141.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
142.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
143.
Andrew Griffiths: The impact of the global appreciation approach on the boundaries of trade mark protection. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 326–360 (2001).
144.
Phillips, Jeremy: Trade mark law: a practical anatomy. Oxford University Press, [Oxford] (2003).
145.
Joshi, R., Isaac, B.: What does identical mean? European Intellectual Property Review. 27, 184–187 (2005).
146.
Phillips, J.: Strong trade marks and the likelihood of confusion in European law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 1, 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpl038.
147.
Schechter, F.: The Rational Basis of Trade Mark Protection. Harvard Law Review. 40, (1927).
148.
Gangjee, D., Burrell, R.: Because You’re Worth It: L’Oreal and the Prohibition on Free Riding. Modern Law Review. 73, 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00794.x.
149.
Court: European Court of Justice: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587. (1999).
150.
*Case C-291/00 LTJ Diffusion v Sadas Vertbaudet, [2003] ECR I-2799, [2003] ETMR 83. (2003).
151.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Reed Executive Plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] ETMR 56. (2004).
152.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-251/95 SABEL v Puma [1997] ECR I-6191, [1998] ETMR 1. (1998).
153.
Court: Court of First Instance, EC: Les Editions Albert Rene v OHIM (Case T-336/03) [2005] ECR II-4667. (2005).
154.
Court: European Court of Justice: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587. (1999).
155.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1. (1999).
156.
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Opposition Division): Zanella SNC’s Community Trade Mark Application (B.42053) [2000] ETMR 69. (2000).
157.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-251/95 SABEL v Puma [1997] ECR I-6191, [1998] ETMR 1. (1998).
158.
Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux (Case C-425/98 ). (2000).
159.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1. (1999).
160.
Court: European Court of Justice: Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97 [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] All ER (EC) 587. (1999).
161.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-251/95 SABEL v Puma [1997] ECR I-6191, [1998] ETMR 1. (1998).
162.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1. (1999).
163.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1. (1999).
164.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-39/97 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc [1998] ECR I-5507, [1999] ETMR 1. (1999).
165.
Case T-387/06 Inter-Ikea Systems BV v OHIM (IDEA/IKEA) [2009] ETMR 17. (2009).
166.
Advocate Generals Opinion: *Case C-292/00 Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff SA v Gofkid Ltd [2003] ECR I 389, [2002] ETMR 99. (2002).
167.
European Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber): *Case C-408/01 Adidas-Salomon AG & Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd [2004] ETMR 10. (2004).
168.
European Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber): *Case C-408/01 Adidas-Salomon AG & Adidas Benelux BV v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd [2004] ETMR 10. (2004).
169.
European Court of Justice: Case C-375/97 General Motors v Yplon [2000] RPC 572. (2000).
170.
Chancery Division: Julius Sämann Ltd v Tetrosyl Ltd [2006] EWHC 529. (2006).
171.
European Court of Justice (First Chamber): Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks & Spencer plc [2012] ETMR 1. (2012).
172.
*Case C-252/07 Intel Corporation Inc v CPM United Kingdom Ltd [2009] ETMR 13. (2009).
173.
Benelux Court of Justice: Colgate-Palmolive BV v Koninklijke Distilleerderijen Erven Lucas Bols NV (1976) 7 IIC 420 (CLAERYN/KLAREIN). (1979).
174.
European Court of Justice (First Chamber): Case C-487/07 L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2009] ECR I-5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 55 (ECJ). (2009).
175.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2010] ETMR 47 (Court of Appeal). (2010).
176.
Intellectual Property Office: Trade Marks Act 1994, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-law.htm, (1994).
177.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
178.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
179.
Helen Norman: Time to blow the whistle on trade mark use? Intellectual Property Quarterly. 1–34 (2004).
180.
Ilanah Simon: How does ‘essential function’ doctrine drive European mark trade law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 401–420 (2005).
181.
Andrew Griffiths: The trade mark monopoly: an analysis of the core zone of absolute protection under Art.5(1)(a). Intellectual Property Quarterly. 3, 312–349 (2007).
182.
M. Senftlebel: Bringing EU Trademark Law Back Into Shape – Lessons to Learn from Keyword Advertising, http://www.epip.eu/conferences/epip06/papers/Parallel%20Session%20Papers/, (2011).
183.
Andrew Griffiths: The trade mark monopoly: an analysis of the core zone of absolute protection under Art.5(1)(a). Intellectual Property Quarterly. 3, 312–349 (2007).
184.
Mothercare v Penguin Books [1988] R.P.C. 113. (1988).
185.
Helen Norman: Time to blow the whistle on trade mark use? Intellectual Property Quarterly. 1–34 (2004).
186.
*Case C-291/00 LTJ Diffusion v Sadas Vertbaudet, [2003] ECR I-2799, [2003] ETMR 83. (2003).
187.
European Court of Justice: Case C-63/97 BMW v Deenik [1999] ECR I-905, [1999] 1 CMLR 1099. (1999).
188.
European Court of Justice: Case C-2/00 Hölterhoff v Ulrich Freiesleben [2002] ETMR 917. (2002).
189.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-206/01 Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed, [2002] ECR I-10273, [2003] ETMR 19 (ECJ). (2003).
190.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): *Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed [2003] ETMR 73 (CA). (2003).
191.
House of Lords: *R v Johnstone [2004] ETMR 2. (2004).
192.
Case C-48/05 Adam Opel v Autec [2007] ETMR 33. (2007).
193.
Google France SARL and another v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and another Google France SARL v Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and others - [2010] All ER (D) 23 (Apr). (2010).
194.
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber): Case C-17/06 Céline v Céline SA [2007] ECR I-7041, [2007] ETMR 80. (2007).
195.
Chancery Division: RxWorks Ltd v Hunter [2007] EWHC 3061. (2007).
196.
Google France SARL and another v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA Google France SARL v Viaticum SA and another Google France SARL v Centre national de recherche en relations humaines (CNRRH) SARL and others - [2010] All ER (D) 23 (Apr). (2010).
197.
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber): Case C-324/09 L’Oreal SA v eBay International AG [2011] ETMR 53. (2011).
198.
European Court of Justice (First Chamber): Case C-323/09 Interflora v Marks & Spencer plc [2012] ETMR 1. (2012).
199.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
200.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
201.
Roughton, A.: Permitted Infringing Use: the Scope of Defences to an Infringement Action. In: Trade mark use. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005).
202.
Ilanah Simon: Nominative use and honest practices in industrial and commercial matters - a very European history. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 117–147 (2007).
203.
Honestly, neither Celine nor Gillette is defensible! European Intellectual Property Review. 30, 286–293 (2008).
204.
Christophe Geiger: Trade marks and freedom of expression - the proportionality of criticism. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 38, 317–327 (2007).
205.
Claire Howell: Trade marks: what constitutes ‘genuine use’? Laboratoires Goemar SA v La Mer Technology. European Intellectual Property Review. 28, 118–121 (2006).
206.
Phillips, Jeremy: Trade mark law: a practical anatomy. Oxford University Press, [Oxford] (2003).
207.
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber): Case C-17/06 Céline v Céline SA [2007] ECR I-7041, [2007] ETMR 80. (2007).
208.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] RPC 16. (2010).
209.
Patents County Court: Redd Solicitors LLP v Red Legal Ltd [2012] EWPCC 54, [2013] ETMR 13. (2013).
210.
Case C-48/05 Adam Opel v Autec [2007] ETMR 33. (2007).
211.
European Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber): Case C-100/02 Gerolsteiner & Brunnen GmbH & Co. v Putsch GmbH [2004] ETMR 40. (2004).
212.
European Court of Justice (Third Chamber): *Case 228/03 Gillette Company v LA-Laboratories Ltd Case [2005] ETMR 67. (2005).
213.
European Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber): Case C-100/02 Gerolsteiner & Brunnen GmbH & Co. v Putsch GmbH [2004] ETMR 40. (2004).
214.
European Court of Justice (Third Chamber): *Case 228/03 Gillette Company v LA-Laboratories Ltd Case [2005] ETMR 67. (2005).
215.
European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber): Case C-17/06 Céline v Céline SA [2007] ECR I-7041, [2007] ETMR 80. (2007).
216.
European Court of Justice (First Chamber): Case C-487/07 L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2009] ECR I-5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 55 (ECJ). (2009).
217.
Dowie-Whybrow, M.: Core statutes on intellectual property. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2013).
218.
European Court of Justice (First Chamber): *Case C-533/06 O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd [2008] ETMR 55. (2008).
219.
European Court of Justice (First Chamber): Case C-487/07 L’Oréal SA v Bellure NV [2009] ECR I-5185; [2010] RPC 1; [2009] ETMR 55 (ECJ). (2009).
220.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-40/01 Ansul BV and Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (Minimax) [2003] ECR I-2439, [2003] ETMR 85. (2003).
221.
European Court of Justice (Third Chamber): Case C-259/02 La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratoires Goemar SA [2004] ETMR 47. (2004).
222.
Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH (C-495/07). (2009).
223.
European Court of Justice (Third Chamber): Case C-246/05 Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung & Co KG [2007] ETMR 61. (2007).
224.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
225.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
226.
Stothers, Christopher: Parallel trade in Europe: intellectual property, competition and regulatory law. Hart, Oxford (2007).
227.
Gill Grassie: Parallel imports and trade marks - where are we? Part 1. European Intellectual Property Review. 28, 474–479 (2006).
228.
Gill Grassie: Parallel imports and trade marks: Part 2: the repackaging cases. European Intellectual Property Review. 28, 513–516 (2006).
229.
Keeling, David T.: Intellectual property rights in EU law: Vol. 1: Free movement and competition law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003).
230.
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, 325–329 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpr004.
231.
European Court of Justice: Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837 at 852, [1974] 2 CMLR 436. (1974).
232.
European Court of Justice: Cases C-15 & 16/74 Centrafarm v Sterling Drug, Centrafarm v Winthrop [1974] ECR 1147, 1183, [1974] 2 CMLR 480. (1974).
233.
European Court of Justice: Case C-317/91 Deutsche Renault AG v Audi AG [1993] ECR I-6227, [1995] 1 CMLR 461. (1995).
234.
European Court of Justice: Case C-355/96 Silhouette International Schmied GmbH v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1998] ECR I-4799, [1998] 2 CMLR 953. (1998).
235.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-414/99 Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Ltd [2001] ECR I-8691, [2002] Ch 109, [2002] 1 CMLR 1. (2002).
236.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-414/99 Zino Davidoff SA v A&G Imports Ltd [2001] ECR I-8691, [2002] Ch 109, [2002] 1 CMLR 1. (2002).
237.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Hunters and Frankau [2007] ETMR 54. (2007).
238.
European Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber): Case C-173/98 Sebago Inc and Ancienne Maison Dubois v GB Unic SA [1999] ETMR 681. (1999).
239.
European Court of Justice: *Case C–16/03 Peak Holding v Axolin-Elinor [2004] ECR I–11313, [2005] Ch 261, [2005] 2 WLR 650. (2005).
240.
Case C-324/09 L’Oréal v eBay International [2011] RPC 27. (2011).
241.
Case C-59/08 Copad SA v Christian Dior Couture [2009] FSR 859 (22). (2009).
242.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-427/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova [1996] ECR I-3457, [1997] 1 CMLR 1151. (1997).
243.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52. (2007).
244.
European Court of Justice: Case C-379/97 Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v Paranova A/S ("Paranova II”)[1999] ECR I-6927, [2000] 1 CMLR 51. (2000).
245.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52. (2007).
246.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-427/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova [1996] ECR I-3457, [1997] 1 CMLR 1151. (1997).
247.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52. (2007).
248.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward [2008] EWCA Civ 83, [2008] ETMR 36. (2008).
249.
European Court of Justice: *Case C-143/00 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer I”) [2002] ECR I-3759, [2002] All ER (EC) 581. (2002).
250.
Chancery Division (Patents Court): Glaxo Group Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd (No 2) [2000] FSR 529. (2000).
251.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52. (2007).
252.
European Court of Justice (Second Chamber): *Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim v Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst ("Boehringer II”), [2007] ECR I-3391, [2007] 2 CMLR 52. (2007).
253.
Advocate Generals Opinion: *Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior SA v Evora BV [1997] ECR I-1603. (1997).
254.
Case C-59/08 Copad SA v Christian Dior Couture [2009] FSR 859 (22). (2009).
255.
Case C-324/09 L’Oréal v eBay International [2011] RPC 27. (2011).
256.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
257.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
258.
Pila, J.: Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 30, 229–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqq009.
259.
Spence, M.: Justifying Copyright. In: Dear images: art, copyright and culture. pp. 389–403. Ridinghouse:, ICA, London (2002).
260.
Irini A. Stamatoudi: ‘Joy’ for the claimant: can a film also be protected as a dramatic work? Intellectual Property Quarterly. 117–126 (2000).
261.
Richard Arnold: Joy: a reply. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 10–21 (2001).
262.
Richard Arnold: Copyright in photographs: a case for reform. European Intellectual Property Review. 27, 303–305 (2005).
263.
Andreas Rahmatian: Music and creativity as perceived by copyright law. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 267–293 (2005).
264.
Tania S.L. Cheng: Does copyright law confer a monopoly over unpreserved cows? European Intellectual Property Review. 276–281 (2006).
265.
Silver, I., Lee, P.: Protecting your Rights – Copyright in Computer Games: Nova Productions and Mazooma Games Ltd. European Intellectual Property Review. 29, 251–255 (2007).
266.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents, (1988).
267.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): *Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No 2) [1999] FSR 79, [2000] FSR 363 (CA). (2000).
268.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Baigent & Leigh v Random House [2007] EWCA Civ 247, [2007] FSR 24. (2007).
269.
Chancery Division: Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC 14. (2006).
270.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2007] RPC 25. (2007).
271.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch 119. (1982).
272.
University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601. (1916).
273.
*Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2012] RPC 1. (2012).
274.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): *Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No 2) [1999] FSR 79, [2000] FSR 363 (CA). (2000).
275.
Chancery Division: Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC 14. (2006).
276.
Chancery Division: Lawson v Dundas. (1985).
277.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): *Sawkins v Hyperion Records [2005] RPC 32; [2005] 1 WLR 3281. (2005).
278.
Chancery Division: Creation Records v News Group Newspapers [1997] EMLR 444. (1997).
279.
Metix (UK) Ltd v G.H. Maughan (Plastics) Ltd [1997] FSR 718. (1997).
280.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Nova Productions Ltd v. Mazooma Games Ltd [2007] RPC 25 (CA). (2007).
281.
Court: Chancery Division: British Northrop Ltd v Texteam Blackburn Ltd [1974] RPC 57. (1974).
282.
Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32. (1983).
283.
Supreme Court: *Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2009] FSR 2. (2009).
284.
Supreme Court: *Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2009] FSR 2. (2009).
285.
House of Lords: George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64. (1976).
286.
University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601. (1916).
287.
House of Lords: Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273. (1964).
288.
Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539. (1900).
289.
Express Newspapers plc v News (UK) Ltd and others - [1990] 3 All ER 376. (1990).
290.
Cornish, W. R., Llewelyn, David, Aplin, Tanya Frances: Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights. Sweet & Maxwell, London (2013).
291.
Bently, Lionel, Sherman, Brad: Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009).
292.
Nigel P. Gravells: Authorship and originality: the persistent influence of Walter v Lane. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 3, 267–293 (2007).
293.
Zemer, L.: Contribution and collaboration in joint authorship: too many misconceptions. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 1, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpl005.
294.
Rebecca Baines: Copyright in commissioned works: a cause for uncertainty. European Intellectual Property Review. 27, 122–123 (2005).
295.
David Booton: The informal acquisition of copyright. Intellectual Property Quarterly. 1, 28–49 (2011).
296.
Laddie, Justice: Copyright: over-strength, over-regulated, over-rated? European Intellectual Property Review. 18, 253–260 (1996).
297.
Helberger, N., Dufft, N., Van Gompel, S., Bernt Hugenholtz, P.: Never forever: why extending the term of protection for sound recordings is a bad idea. European Intellectual Property Review. 30, 174–181 (2008).
298.
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. 247–251 (2010).
299.
University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601. (1916).
300.
House of Lords: Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273. (1964).
301.
Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539. (1900).
302.
Express Newspapers plc v News (UK) Ltd and others - [1990] 3 All ER 376. (1990).
303.
Privy Council (Hong Kong): *Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc [1989] AC 217. (1989).
304.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): *Sawkins v Hyperion Records [2005] RPC 32; [2005] 1 WLR 3281. (2005).
305.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): ZYX Music GmbH v King [1995] 3 All ER 1, [1997] 2 All ER 129. (1997).
306.
Chancery Division: Antiquesportfolio.Com Plc v. Rodney Fitch & Company Limited [2001] ECDR 5. (2001).
307.
European Court of Justice (Third Chamber): *Case C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH, [2012] ECDR 6. (2012).
308.
Patents County Court: *Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd [2012] FSR 9. (2012).
309.
*Infopaq International v Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-5/08). (2009).
310.
European Court of Justice (Third Chamber): *Case C-145/10 Eva-Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH, [2012] ECDR 6. (2012).
311.
*Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2012] RPC 1. (2012).
312.
House of Lords: Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer Plc [2001] Ch 257 (CA); [2003] 1 AC 551 (HL). (2003).
313.
Chancery Division: *Robin Ray v Classic FM [1998] FSR 622. (1998).
314.
Chancery Division: Brighton v Jones [2005] FSR 16. (2005).
315.
Chancery Division: Hadley v Kemp [1999] EMLR 589. (1999).
316.
House of Lords: Fisher v Brooker [2007] EMLR 9; [2007] FSR 12 (Ch D); [2008] EMLR 13 (CA); [2009] 1 WLR 1764 (HL). (2009).
317.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Beckingham v Hodgens [2003] ECDR 6 (Ch D); [2003] EMLR 18 (CA). (2003).
318.
Court: Court of Appeal: Stevenson (or Stephenson) Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans (1952) 1 TLR 101. (1952).
319.
Chancery Division: *Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14. (1991).
320.
Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Griggs Group Ltd v Evans [2005] FSR 31. (2005).
