The March issues of two Sweet & Maxwell publications, the European Trade Mark Reports and the Fleet Street Reports, have now been published.
The ETMR contains just three cases this month, but they are all whoppers from the European Court of Justice:
* Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH [2004] ETMR 243: what was the legal effect of pre-EU bilateral treaty between EU Member State and non-Member State concerning non-registrability of beer appellations?
* Ravil Sarl v Bellon [2004] ETMR 274: was the Italian law requiring cheese to be grated in Italy before it could be called GRANA PANADO was contrary to free movement of goods principle?
* Consorzio di Prosciutto di Parma v Asda and others [2004] ETMR 314: was the Italian law which required ham to be sliced and packaged in Parma region before it could be called PARMA ham contrary to free movement of goods principle?
The FSR, unusually, contains a United States case, the celebrated patent decision in Festo. The full list of cases reported in the FSR this month is as follows:
* World Wide Fund v THQ/JAKKS Pacific [2004] FSR 161: Court of Appeal – what is the effect of injunctive relief upon a third party is unable to make effective compliance with the injunction?
* Festo Corp v Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo [2004] FSR 186: This is the US Supreme Court ruling on the interrelationship between the doctrine of equivalents and file wrapper estoppel.
* Mattel Inc v Woolbro (Distributors) [2004] FSR 217: In this UK Patents Court decision Laddie J considers, in the context of Community unregistered design right infringement, whether similar fact evidence is of probative value.
The ETMR contains just three cases this month, but they are all whoppers from the European Court of Justice:
* Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH [2004] ETMR 243: what was the legal effect of pre-EU bilateral treaty between EU Member State and non-Member State concerning non-registrability of beer appellations?
* Ravil Sarl v Bellon [2004] ETMR 274: was the Italian law requiring cheese to be grated in Italy before it could be called GRANA PANADO was contrary to free movement of goods principle?
* Consorzio di Prosciutto di Parma v Asda and others [2004] ETMR 314: was the Italian law which required ham to be sliced and packaged in Parma region before it could be called PARMA ham contrary to free movement of goods principle?
The FSR, unusually, contains a United States case, the celebrated patent decision in Festo. The full list of cases reported in the FSR this month is as follows:
* World Wide Fund v THQ/JAKKS Pacific [2004] FSR 161: Court of Appeal – what is the effect of injunctive relief upon a third party is unable to make effective compliance with the injunction?
* Festo Corp v Shoketsu Kinzuko Kogyo [2004] FSR 186: This is the US Supreme Court ruling on the interrelationship between the doctrine of equivalents and file wrapper estoppel.
* Mattel Inc v Woolbro (Distributors) [2004] FSR 217: In this UK Patents Court decision Laddie J considers, in the context of Community unregistered design right infringement, whether similar fact evidence is of probative value.
WHAT’S NEW IN THE LAW REPORTS?
![WHAT’S NEW IN THE LAW REPORTS?]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, February 27, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html