tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6097763752551951302..comments2024-03-29T13:59:42.629+00:00Comments on The IPKat: UK – Samsung liable for trade mark infringement over digital watch faces developed by third partiesVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58772252297681719802022-12-03T06:09:56.793+00:002022-12-03T06:09:56.793+00:00The Job Shoppe offers tips on all of these topics ...The Job Shoppe offers tips on all of these topics so that you can feel confident about your decision when choosing the right full-time <a href="https://thejobshoppe.com/full-time-jobs-in-alabama/" rel="nofollow">jobs in Alabama.</a>Alex joohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11729155240185476225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64071529615375008922022-06-07T15:09:13.226+01:002022-06-07T15:09:13.226+01:00I'm not sure it is right to describe this case...I'm not sure it is right to describe this case as a departure from CJEU guidance in Google France and L’Oréal v eBay. It is more an application of it. The "departure" comment is based on an incorrect assumption (that the case concerned an intermediary simply acting as a vehicle for hosting apps developed by third parties). In fact this judgment concerns different circumstances. As the discussion above explains, the judge made findings that emphasised the importance of considering Samsung’s conduct as a whole, and why they were *not* merely a vehicle. Perhaps the most important point of distinction is that Google and eBay are general marketplaces whereas the offer and sale of apps in this case were integrated into Samsung's smartwatch business. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com