Customer support: +44 (0)20 7017 7701 Technical Support: +44 (0) 20 7017 4161

Print Editions

View print editions
for 2001

 

Key
@ - Online Only
#  - Appeared in print edition
Download PDF  - Click to download the issue as a PDF file

RSS feedIntellectual Property Decisions

Browse Archive by Year
Browse 2001 Archive by Month
Articles for December 2001
24076 Procter & Gamble Company v OHIM #
01 December 2001
T van Innis for the appellant; O Montalto and E Joly for the defendant at first instance. Background Procter & Gamble (‘P&G’) appealed against the Court of First Instance judgment annulling the decision of the First Board..
24077 Dyson Appliances Limited v Hoover Limited #
01 December 2001
Mr G Hobbs QC, Mr M Vanhegan and Mr P Roberts (Arnander Irvin and Zeitman) for the appellant defendants; Mr D Kitchin QC and Mr G Burkill (Olswang) for the respondent claimants. Per Aldous LJ (all..
24078 Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB v (1) Amicon Limited (2) Millipore (UK) Limited (3) Millipore Corporation #
01 December 2001
Mr H Carr QC and Mr I Purvis (Bristows) for the appellant claimants; Mr C Floyd QC and Mr G Burkill (Wragge & Co) for the respondent defendants. per Aldous LJ (all concurring): Background Amersham appealed against that..
24079 (1) WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund) (2) World Wildlife Fund Inc v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc #
01 December 2001
Mr C Morcom QC and Mr M Brealey (Edwin Coe) for the claimants; Mr Carr QC, Ms S Ward and Ms E Himsworth (S J Berwin) for the defendant. Background The claimants sought enforcement of a contract..
24080 Kirin-Amgen Inc v Transkaryotic Therapies Inc #
01 December 2001
Mr A Watson QC, Mr A Waugh QC and Mr C Birss (Taylor Joynson Garrett) for Kirin-Amgen; Mr D Kitchin QC, Mr R Meade and Miss L Lane (Bird & Bird) for the TKT parties. Background Amgen’s..
24081 Eli Lilly and Company v David Clayton #
01 December 2001
Background This is the first case to be decided under the new Dispute Resolution Service. Since the respondent did not reply to the complainant’s notification, mediation was not possible, so the complainant paid the required fee for..