The Tribunal found that under s44 of the ICSID Convention, it had power to allow non-parties to submit amicus curiae briefs and considered the criteria under which that power should be exercised.
|
In a dispute relating to various patent, design and trade mark rights connected with a type of anti-colic baby bottles, it was held that the patent was invalid for obviousness, the copyright in the logo had been infringed by the UK corporate defendants’ acts of importing, possessing and distributing, and the UK corporate defendants had infringed the claimants’ trade mark and passed off their bottles as those of the claimants. It was appropriate to extend liability for copyright and trade mark i ...
|
In analysing the Home Secretary’s approach when rejecting Parole Board recommendation on categorisation or transfer of mandatory life sentence prisoners, either he could accept the Parole Board's advice, save in exceptional circumstances, whether that advice is for or against transfer. Alternatively, he could look carefully and with due attention and with a questioning mind at every piece of advice, positive or negative, from the Board. It is not always the case, in relation to negative advice f ...
|
The hearing officer had been correct to conclude that the registration of FRICTION MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, in respect of the provision of solutions to manage or control friction in industrial equipment, was precluded by s.3(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act as being a term which objectively and specifically designated the kind and intended purpose of the services in the specification.
|
An appeal was dismissed against a hearing officer’s decision to reject an opposition to the registration of STERISHIELD for paints, varnishes etc. The opposition was based on objections under s.3(1)(c) (descriptive of the goods) and s.5(2)(b) (similarity to the opponent’s mark STERISHEEN). The hearing officer had been entitled to conclude that STERISHIELD as a whole was not merely descriptive, and the hearing officer’s comparison of the two marks under s.5(2)(b) could not be faulted.
|
Criminal - Preliminary Issues and Devolution Issue:- On 29 June 2007 the minuter, a 52 year old man, appeared at a preliminary hearing at Glasgow to answer an indictment in which there were four charges relating to indecency. The minuter raised preliminary issues within the meaning of section 79(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and a devolution issue within the meaning of schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998. The preliminary issues related to objections to the latitude of time ...
|
The Parole Board failed the independence test required by Art. 6 ECHR. The judgment was stayed pending appeal.
|
An appeal was dismissed against the decision of a hearing officer to reject an opposition to the registration of stylized TOP HOME for goods including tobacco and smoking articles. The opposition was based on s.5(2)(b) and the opponent’s earlier registration for stylized TOP for the same goods. The hearing officer had been entitled to find that although the marks shared a common word there was no likelihood of confusion. The presumed distinctive character of the opponent’s mark resided primar ...
|
An appeal was dismissed against a hearing officer’s decision to reject oppositions to the registration of HYPERGLUE and HYPAGLUE for adhesives. The oppositions were based on ss.3(1)(b) and (c). The opponent contended that the hearing officer had artificially differentiated between the word hyper/hypa as used as an adjective and as used as a prefix, and had considered only the dictionary meanings for the adjectival use. It was held that any distinction made between prefix and adjectival use ha ...
|
D was sentenced to an IPP with a tariff period of 1 year 295 days. At the time of his parole hearing he had not been provided with an opportunity to complete relevant courses so as to be able to demonstrate that he did not pose a risk to the public. It was argued that despite the fact he could not satisfy the test for statutory release, his continued detention was unlawful. Held: The court would issue a declaration that D was unlawfully imprisoned. That declaration would be stayed pending an app ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |