Clients
Rouse has a client list ‘to die for’. It is well-known for its close client relationships.
Notable Decisions
The following is a list of notable intellectual property cases in which we have acted. If you would like further information in relation to any of the cases, please contact research@iprights.com
adidas AG v Al Kanana Star Readymade Garments
Dubai Court (Appeal), 30/Jan/2008
Appeal No. 809/2007 Civil
The court confirmed that the trade mark “3 stripes” was owned by the plaintiff adidas AG and was distinctive and enforceable regardless of whether adidas’ other word marks or logos appear on the products. This court decision is being used as a precedent in many other jurisdictions in the region to support registration and enforcement of adidas’ 3 stripes trade mark. (Rouse Dubai managed the case on behalf of adidas AG)
For further information contact Sara Holder at sholder@iprights.com.
Universal Music Limited and 10 others v Yahoo! China
Dubai Court (Appeal), 30/Jan/2008
Appeal No. 809/2007 Civil
The court confirmed that the trade mark “3 stripes” was owned by the plaintiff adidas AG and was distinctive and enforceable regardless of whether adidas’ other word marks or logos appear on the products. This court decision is being used as a precedent in many other jurisdictions in the region to support registration and enforcement of adidas’ 3 stripes trade mark. (Rouse Dubai managed the case on behalf of adidas AG)
For further information contact Sara Holder at sholder@iprights.com.
Universal Music Limited and 10 others v Yahoo! China
Beijing Higher People's Court (Appeal), 20 December 2007
(2007) gaominzhongzi No.1184-1193, 1239
This case and subsequent appeal tested new law in establishing joint copyright infringement by Yahoo! China for providing a specialized but unlicensed music search service. The court held that Yahoo! China ought to have known the legal status of the sound recordings to which it provided deep-links.
The case was judged by the Beijing Higher People's Court to be the most important IP case in China in 2007, and won Managing IP's Asian Copyright Case of the Year Award for 2008. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the 11 major record company plaintiffs.
For more information contact Tim Smith at tsmith@iprights.com.
This case and subsequent appeal tested new law in establishing joint copyright infringement by Yahoo! China for providing a specialized but unlicensed music search service. The court held that Yahoo! China ought to have known the legal status of the sound recordings to which it provided deep-links.
The case was judged by the Beijing Higher People's Court to be the most important IP case in China in 2007, and won Managing IP's Asian Copyright Case of the Year Award for 2008. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the 11 major record company plaintiffs.
For more information contact Tim Smith at tsmith@iprights.com.
Mars Incorporated v Guangzhou Haomingtuhua Food Co., Ltd.
Guangdong Higher People's Court (Appeal), 21 December 2008
(2008) yuegaogaliminzhongzi No. 485
This appeal decision confirmed that a defendant's registration of a design patent for its packaging could not be used as a defence to a claim of trade mark infringement. This ruling provides helpful clarification as similar defences are often raised by infringers in China.
The case was one of the Top 10 IP Cases of the Guangzhou Intermediate Court in 2008. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Mars Incorporated.
For more information contact Luke Minford at lminford@iprights.com.
Guangdong Higher People's Court (Appeal), 21 December 2008
(2008) yuegaogaliminzhongzi No. 485
This appeal decision confirmed that a defendant's registration of a design patent for its packaging could not be used as a defence to a claim of trade mark infringement. This ruling provides helpful clarification as similar defences are often raised by infringers in China.
The case was one of the Top 10 IP Cases of the Guangzhou Intermediate Court in 2008. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Mars Incorporated.
For more information contact Luke Minford at lminford@iprights.com.
Diageo Brands B.V. & Diageo (Shanghai) v Blueblood (Shanghai) Wine Industry Co., Ltd.
Shanghai No.2 Intermediate Court, 25 November 2008
(2008) huerzhongminwu (zhi) chuzi No.18
This leading case on trade dress related to the protection of the well-known get-up of Johnnie Walker black label whisky and is a landmark decision on damages, with an award of RMB1.25 million (approximately USD 138,000) being made by the court.
The case was one of the Top 50 IP Cases in China in 2008 as judged by the Supreme People's Court. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiffs Diageo Brands B.V. and Diageo Shanghai.
For more information contact He Fang at hfang@iprights.com.
Shanghai No.2 Intermediate Court, 25 November 2008
(2008) huerzhongminwu (zhi) chuzi No.18
This leading case on trade dress related to the protection of the well-known get-up of Johnnie Walker black label whisky and is a landmark decision on damages, with an award of RMB1.25 million (approximately USD 138,000) being made by the court.
The case was one of the Top 50 IP Cases in China in 2008 as judged by the Supreme People's Court. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiffs Diageo Brands B.V. and Diageo Shanghai.
For more information contact He Fang at hfang@iprights.com.
STIHL v Quzhou SWOOL Power Machinery Co., Ltd.
Zhejiang Higher People's Court (Appeal), 17 November 2008
(2008) Zheinsanzhongzi No. 284
At first instance, the plaintiff successfully opposed a stay of patent infringement proceedings in the face of an invalidity application filed by the defendant in parallel proceedings before the State Intellectual Property Office. The first instance finding of infringement of the plaintiff's patent relating to its range of chain-saws was affirmed on appeal. The infringing product was so 'good' it was even awarded the 'Plagiarism Prize' (Plagiarius-Preis) in Germany!
The case was one of the Top 10 IP Cases judged by the Zhejiang Higher Court in 2008. The case was also one of the Top 50 IP Cases in China in 2008 as judged by the Supreme People's Court. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff STIHL.
For more information contact Elliot Papageorgiou at epapageorgiou@iprights.com.
Zhejiang Higher People's Court (Appeal), 17 November 2008
(2008) Zheinsanzhongzi No. 284
At first instance, the plaintiff successfully opposed a stay of patent infringement proceedings in the face of an invalidity application filed by the defendant in parallel proceedings before the State Intellectual Property Office. The first instance finding of infringement of the plaintiff's patent relating to its range of chain-saws was affirmed on appeal. The infringing product was so 'good' it was even awarded the 'Plagiarism Prize' (Plagiarius-Preis) in Germany!
The case was one of the Top 10 IP Cases judged by the Zhejiang Higher Court in 2008. The case was also one of the Top 50 IP Cases in China in 2008 as judged by the Supreme People's Court. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff STIHL.
For more information contact Elliot Papageorgiou at epapageorgiou@iprights.com.
Valeo, Honeywell and others v Xiapu County Huafeng Machinery Co., Ltd
Fujian Xiapu People's Court, 21 November 2008
(2008) xiaxinchuzi No.178
This leading criminal case addressed the challenges faced by rights owners in overcoming the complicated valuation system for seized goods used by the local authorities in China to assess the relevant penalty for criminal counterfeiting.
This case was one of the Top 10 IP Cases in China in 2008, as judged by the Supreme People's Court. Rouse acted for a number of the brand owners including Valeo, Honeywell, Honda, Toyota and PSA Citroen.
Fujian Xiapu People's Court, 21 November 2008
(2008) xiaxinchuzi No.178
This leading criminal case addressed the challenges faced by rights owners in overcoming the complicated valuation system for seized goods used by the local authorities in China to assess the relevant penalty for criminal counterfeiting.
This case was one of the Top 10 IP Cases in China in 2008, as judged by the Supreme People's Court. Rouse acted for a number of the brand owners including Valeo, Honeywell, Honda, Toyota and PSA Citroen.
For more information contact Ray Moroney at rmoroney@iprights.com.
Spin Master Ltd. v Shantou Naiqi Plastic Crafts Factory
Shantou Intermediate People's Court, 10 August 2008
(2008) shanzhongfazhijinzi No.3
In this pre-litigation application, the court granted a preliminary injunction to prevent infringement of copyright relating to a toy (work of applied art) owned by the plaintiff, and granted orders regarding asset and evidence preservation. The injunction was confirmed and made permanent following the hearing on the merits.
Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Spin Master Ltd.
For more information contact Carol Wang at cwang@iprights.com.
Shantou Intermediate People's Court, 10 August 2008
(2008) shanzhongfazhijinzi No.3
In this pre-litigation application, the court granted a preliminary injunction to prevent infringement of copyright relating to a toy (work of applied art) owned by the plaintiff, and granted orders regarding asset and evidence preservation. The injunction was confirmed and made permanent following the hearing on the merits.
Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Spin Master Ltd.
For more information contact Carol Wang at cwang@iprights.com.
Spin Master Ltd. v Gold Light Toys Factory & Leyu Toys Ltd. & others
Shantou Intermediate People's Court, 08 April 2009
(2009) Shanzhongfazhichuzi No.7-10
In this pre-litigation application, which tested the boundaries of the protection afforded by copyright to three dimensional designs, the court recognised that copyright could subsist in the base of a toy car, and granted preliminary injunctive relief as well as asset and evidence preservation orders. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Spin Master Ltd.
For more information contact Carol Wang at cwang@iprights.com.
Shantou Intermediate People's Court, 08 April 2009
(2009) Shanzhongfazhichuzi No.7-10
In this pre-litigation application, which tested the boundaries of the protection afforded by copyright to three dimensional designs, the court recognised that copyright could subsist in the base of a toy car, and granted preliminary injunctive relief as well as asset and evidence preservation orders. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Spin Master Ltd.
For more information contact Carol Wang at cwang@iprights.com.
B&Q plc v Zhoushan Baianju
Zhengjiang Higher People's Court (Appeal), 18 July 2008
(2008)Zheminsanzhongzi No.84
On first instance and appeal, the court held that the plaintiff's registered mark 'B&Q' was a 'well-known' trade mark in China and was therefore able to be used to prevent the use by the defendant of the same mark in relation to the dissimilar services.
Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff B&Q plc.
For more information contact Tim Smith at tsmith@iprights.com.
Mars (China) v Anhui Xinma Food Co., Ltd. & Deng Anqi
Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court (Appeal), 1 April 2009
(2009) Suizhongfaminsanzhongzi No. 72
This case and subsequent appeal decision gave valuable guidance as to the point at which the 'borrowing' of elements of well-known product packaging constituted a breach of Chinese unfair competition law. Finding infringement, the court recognised the well-known nature of the get-up of DOVE chocolate in China.
Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Mars (China).
For more information contact Luke Minford at lminford@iprights.com.
Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court (Appeal), 1 April 2009
(2009) Suizhongfaminsanzhongzi No. 72
This case and subsequent appeal decision gave valuable guidance as to the point at which the 'borrowing' of elements of well-known product packaging constituted a breach of Chinese unfair competition law. Finding infringement, the court recognised the well-known nature of the get-up of DOVE chocolate in China.
Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Mars (China).
For more information contact Luke Minford at lminford@iprights.com.
Mars Incorporated v Hu Junguang (Owner of Shijiazhuang Kang Er Bei Si Candy & Beverage Factory)
Hebei People's Court (Appeal), 11 January 2008
(2008) jiminsanzhongzi No. 00006
Hebei People's Court (Appeal), 11 January 2008
(2008) jiminsanzhongzi No. 00006
The case and subsequent appeals dealt with important issues concerning the requirements for foreign rights owners to bring proceedings in China. Rouse and its associated law firm Lusheng acted for the plaintiff Mars Incorporated.
For more information contact Luke Minford at lminford@iprights.com.
For more information contact Luke Minford at lminford@iprights.com.
China Social Sciences Press v Frederick Warne & Co Ltd
Beijing Higher People's Court (Appeal), 1 September 2005
(2005) gaoxingzhongzi No.85
The appeal court in Beijing held that the use of a Peter Rabbit device on books by a domestic publisher constituted trade mark infringement even though the device was no longer protected under copyright law.
The case has been recognized by the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office as one of most influential IP cases in China.
Rouse acted for the defendant Frederick Warne & Co Ltd.
For more information contact August Zhang at azhang@iprights.com.
Beijing Higher People's Court (Appeal), 1 September 2005
(2005) gaoxingzhongzi No.85
The appeal court in Beijing held that the use of a Peter Rabbit device on books by a domestic publisher constituted trade mark infringement even though the device was no longer protected under copyright law.
The case has been recognized by the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office as one of most influential IP cases in China.
Rouse acted for the defendant Frederick Warne & Co Ltd.
For more information contact August Zhang at azhang@iprights.com.
Glaxo Group Ltd v (1) Genentech Inc (2) Biogen Idec Inc (2008)
Court of Appeal, 31/01/2008
(2008) FSR 18, (2008) 31(4) IPD 31024, (2008) Bus LR 888, The Times, 21/02/2008
(Rouse Legal acted for Glaxo Group Ltd)
We brought on behalf of GSK an action in the Patents Court seeking revocation of a patent owned by Genentech and Biogen IDEC relating to a monoclonal antibody treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. This case is significant because it sets out the guidelines the Court will apply when it decides whether or not to put UK revocation action on hold while oppositions in the European Patent Office (EPO) are ongoing. After the refusal of the Court of Appeal to stay the action, the case settled.
For more information contact Diana Sternfeld at dsternfeld@iprights.com.
Glaxo Group Ltd v (1) Genentech Inc (2) Biogen Idec Inc (2007)
Chancery Division, 15/06/2007
(2007) FSR 35, (2007) 30(7) IPD 30048
(Rouse Legal acted for Glaxo Group Ltd)
Unilin Beheer BV v (1) Berry Floor NV (2) Information Management Consultancy Ltd (3) B&Q Plc (2007)
Court of Appeal, 25/04/2007
(2007) FSR 25, (2007) Bus LR 1140, (2008) 1 ALL ER 156
(Rouse Legal acted for B&Q Plc)
We acted for B&Q plc in this patent action. The Court of Appeal decided that where a United Kingdom Court has found a European patent to be valid and infringed, the patentee will be entitled to compensation for any infringing acts even if the patent is the European Patent Office (EPO) subsequently finds the patent invalid, which has the effect of revoking the patent ab initio. This decision was important because it provides certainty. A defendant will not be able to unravel a finding of infringement against him by the UK courts - and conversely the patentee can be certain of receiving compensation - no matter what happens in the EPO.
For more information contact Diana Sternfeld at dsternfeld@iprights.com.
Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA v Sanofi Pasteur SA (formerly Aventis Pasteur SA) trading as Aventis Pasteur
Chancery Division, 28/07/2006
(2007) 30(1) IPD 30005
(Rouse Legal acted for Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA)
We acted for GSK who applied to revoke the United Kingdom part of European patent for a vaccine for Streptococcus pneumonia. Sanofi applied to stay the action pending the completion of the opposition in the European Patent Office (EPO). GSK successfully resisted that application. The case was reported at [2006] EWHC 2333 Pat. Shortly before the trial, Sanofi consented to revocation of the UK part of the patent. Subsequently the EPO held that the patent was invalid.
For more information contact Diana Sternfeld at dsternfeld@iprights.com.
Nottinghamshire County Council v Woolworths Plc
Magistrates Court, 18/05/2006
[2007] FSR 19
(Willoughby & Partners acted for Woolworths Plc)
Julius Samann Ltd, Julius Samann Ltd, H Young (Operations) Limited v Tetrosyl Limited
Chancery Division, 17/03/2006
[2006] FSR 42, (2006) 29(6) IPD 29046
(Willoughby & Partners acted for H Young (Operations) Limited)
E-Data Corporation v Getty Images Inc & Ors
Patents County Court, 08/06/2005
(2005) 28(7) IPD 28054
(Willoughby & Partners acted for Getty Images Inc)
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd
Chancery Division, 21/12/2004
(2005) RPC 19, (2005) 28(3) IPD 4
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Qualtex (UK) Ltd)
Glaxo Group Ltd v Dowelhurst Ltd & Anor
Court of Appeal, 15/3/2004
(2004) 27(6) IPD 8
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Glaxo Group Ltd)
(2004) 27(6) IPD 8
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Glaxo Group Ltd)
H Young Operations Ltd v Medici Ltd
Chancery Division, 14/7/2003
(2003) 26(3) IPD 26041, (2003) 100(11) LSG 31, TLR 11/02/2003
(Willoughby & Partners acted for H Young Operations Ltd)
(2003) 26(3) IPD 26041, (2003) 100(11) LSG 31, TLR 11/02/2003
(Willoughby & Partners acted for H Young Operations Ltd)
Glaxo Group Ltd and others v Dowelhurst Ltd and others
Chancery Division, 06/02/2003
TLR 28/2/2003
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Glaxo Group Ltd)
The Coca-Cola Company and another v Cengiz Aytacli and others
Chancery Division, 30/01/2003
[2003] IPD 26016
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for The Coca Cola Company)
Unilin Beheer Bv v Berry Floor, Nv Information Management Consultancy Ltd (T/A Responsive Designs) and B&Q Plc
Patents Court, 17/01/2003
[2003] IPD 26012
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for B&Q Plc)
[2003] IPD 26012
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for B&Q Plc)
The Coca-Cola Company v Mabe
Chancery Division, 12/11/01
[2002] F.S.R 47
(Willoughby and Partners acted for The Coca-Cola Company)
[2002] F.S.R 47
(Willoughby and Partners acted for The Coca-Cola Company)
Asprey & Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd and another
Court of Appeal, 11/10/01
[2001] EWCA Civ 1499, (2002) 25(1) I.P.D. 25001, [2002] FSR 31
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Asprey & Garrard Ltd)
Asprey & Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd and another
Chancery Division, 18/05/01
[2002] FSR 30
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Asprey & Garrard Ltd)
Merck, Sharp and Dohme GmbH v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels Gmbh; Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and others v Swingward Ltd and others
ECJ, 12/07/01
[2001] E.T.M.R 99
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for SmithKline Beecham Plc)
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for SmithKline Beecham Plc)
Siddiqui's Trade Mark Application
Trade Marks Registry, 27/06/00
[2001] E.T.M.R 38
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Siddiqui)
Glaxo Group Ltd and others v Dowelhurst Ltd and others
Patents Court, 28/02/00
[2000] 2 C.M.L.R 571, [2000] E.T.M.R 415, [2000] F.S.R 529, (2000) 55 B.M.L.R 157,
(2000) 23(6) I.P.D 23046, The Times, 14/03/00
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for SmithKline Beecham Plc)
Premier Brands (UK) Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd
Chancery Division, 21/01/00
[2000] E.T.M.R 1071, [2000] F.S.R 767, (2000) 23(5) I.P.D 23038, (2000) 97(5) L.S.G 35,
The Times, 22/02/00
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Typhoon Europe Ltd)
Montblanc Simplo GMBH v Sepia Products Inc.
Chancery Division, 01/12/99
(2000) 23(3) I.P.D 23021, The Times, 02/02/00
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Montblanc)
[2000] E.T.M.R 1071, [2000] F.S.R 767, (2000) 23(5) I.P.D 23038, (2000) 97(5) L.S.G 35,
The Times, 22/02/00
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Typhoon Europe Ltd)
Montblanc Simplo GMBH v Sepia Products Inc.
Chancery Division, 01/12/99
(2000) 23(3) I.P.D 23021, The Times, 02/02/00
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Montblanc)
Magic Ball Trade Mark
Nestle UK v Zeta Espacial SA
Chancery Division, 23/06/99
[2000] E.T.M.R 226, [2000] R.P.C 439, (1999) 22(9) I.P.D 22087
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Zeta Espacial SA)
Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Cadbury Limited
Court of Appeal, 25/02/99
[1999] E.T.M.R 1020, [1999] R.P.C 826, (1999) 22(8) I.P.D 22079, The Times, 15/03/99
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Cadbury)
The Coca-Cola Company v British Telecommunications plc Chancery Division, 15/12/98
[1999] I.T.C.L.R 365, [1999] F.S.R. 518
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Coca-Cola)
Matthew Gloag and Son Ltd and another v Welsh Distillers Ltd and others
Chancery Division, 24/02/98
[1998] 2 C.M.L.R 203, [1999] Eu.L.R 625, [1998] F.S.R 718, (1998) 21(6) I.P.D 21063, The Times, 27/02/98
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Matthew Gloag and Son Ltd and another)
The European Limited v The Economist Newspaper Limited
Court of Appeal, 20/11/97
[1998] E.T.M.R 307, [1998] E.M.L.R 536, [1998] F.S.R. 283, (1998) 21(3) I.P.D 21022
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for The Economist)
Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Cadbury Limited Chancery Division, 29/10/97
[1998] E.T.M.R. 205, [1998] R.P.C. 117, (1998) 21(1) I.P.D 21007, The Times, 25/11/97
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Cadbury)
Prince Plc v Prince Sports Group Inc.
Chancery Division, 30/07/97
[1997-98] Info.T.L.R 329, [1998] F.S.R. 21, [1998] Masons C.L.R 139
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Prince Plc)
Pitman Training Limited and Another v Nominet U.K. and Another
Chancery Division, 22/05/97
[1997-98] Info.T.L.R 177, [1998] I.T.C.L.R 17, [1997] F.S.R. 797, (1998) 17 Tr.L.R 173, [1998] Masons C.L.R 125, (1997) 20(8) I.P.D 20080
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for the 2nd defendant, Pearson Professional Ltd trading as Pitman Publishing)
The Scotch Whisky Association v Glen Kella Distillers Limited (No.2)
Chancery Division, 24/03/97
[1997] Eu.L.R 455, [1997] E.T.M.R. 470, (1997) 20(7) I.P.D 20067, (1997) 94(16) L.S.G 29, (1997) 141 S.J.L.B 91, The Times, 01/04/97
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for The Scotch Whisky Association)
[1997] Eu.L.R 455, [1997] E.T.M.R. 470, (1997) 20(7) I.P.D 20067, (1997) 94(16) L.S.G 29, (1997) 141 S.J.L.B 91, The Times, 01/04/97
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for The Scotch Whisky Association)
United Biscuits (UK) Ltd v ASDA Stores Limited
Chancery Division, 18/03/97
[1997] R.P.C. 513, (1997) 20(5) I.P.D 20043
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for United Biscuits)
[1997] R.P.C. 513, (1997) 20(5) I.P.D 20043
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for United Biscuits)
Electronic Techniques (Anglia) Limited v Critchley Components Limited
Chancery Division, 28/11/96
[1997] F.S.R. 401, (1997) 20(4) I.P.D 20037
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Electronic Techniques (Anglia) Limited)
The Scotch Whisky Association v Glen Kella Distillers Limited (No.1)
Chancery Division, 21/11/96
The Times, 27/12/96
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for The Scotch Whisky Association)
Trebor Bassett Ltd v Football Association Ltd
Chancery Division, 16/10/96
[1997] F.S.R 211, (1996) 19(12) I.P.D 19116
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Trebor Bassett Ltd)
[1997] F.S.R 211, (1996) 19(12) I.P.D 19116
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for Trebor Bassett Ltd)
Cobra Golf Inc v Rata Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc v. Rata & Rata
Chancery Division, 19/03/96
[1996] F.S.R. 819, (1996) 19(6) I.P.D 19051
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc)
The European Limited v The Economist Newspaper Limited
Chancery Division, 14/03/96
[1996] E.M.L.R 394, [1996] F.S.R. 431, (1996) I.P.D 19067
(Rouse Legal (formerly Willoughby & Partners) acted for The Economist)
The Scotch Whisky Association v JD Vintners Ltd
Chancery Division, 06/03/96
[1997] Eu. L.R 446
(Rouse & Co. International acted for The Scotch Whisky Association)
[1997] Eu. L.R 446
(Rouse & Co. International acted for The Scotch Whisky Association)
Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc v Rata & Rata
Chancery Division, 08/02/96
[1996] F.S.R. 528, (1996) 19(6) I.P.D 19050
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc)
[1996] F.S.R. 528, (1996) 19(6) I.P.D 19050
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc)
The Coca Cola Co and another v Gilbey and others
Court of Appeal, 15/09/95
[1996] F.S.R. 23
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Coca Cola Co)
[1996] F.S.R. 23
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Coca Cola Co)
The Coca Cola Co and another v Gilbey and others
Chancery Division, 15/09/95
[1995] 4 All E.R 711, (1995) 145 N.L.J 1688, The Times, 28/11/95, Independent, 10/10/95
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Coca Cola Co)
[1995] 4 All E.R 711, (1995) 145 N.L.J 1688, The Times, 28/11/95, Independent, 10/10/95
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Coca Cola Co)
Pendax AB and another v Anders and Kern (UK) Ltd
Patents Court, 17/06/93
[1993] F.S.R. 743
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Pendax)
[1993] F.S.R. 743
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Pendax)
Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc v Rata & Rata
Chancery Division, 19/03/96
[1996] F.S.R. 819, (1996) 19(6) I.P.D 19051
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc)
[1996] F.S.R. 819, (1996) 19(6) I.P.D 19051
(Rouse & Co. International acted for Taylor Made Golf Co. Inc)
