|
Employment Law – Employment Lawyers - Disability Discrimination - Britain Got Talent Ex Contestant - July 2010
At the second day of a pre-trial review hearing on 21st July 2010, Amelia Pearl Czikai (a former contestant of Britain has Talent show) said she was seeking £300,000 for injured feelings, compensation of £1m and loss of earnings of £1.25m on the grounds of disability discrimination against the show's creator and star, Simon Cowell, the production company Syco, and Freemantle Media. These claims are denied. Ms Czikai is believed to suffer from cervical spine neuritis, which causes severe neck pain and headaches. The pre-trial hearing is to determine whether there is any basis for her claim. More
==========================================================================
Intellectual Property Law – IP Lawyers - Trade Mark Law – Trade Mark Lawyers - Trade Mark Protection - Likelihood of Confusion – Contested Decision - July 2010
The recent case of Coin SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2010] involved a determination relating to likelihood of confusion in respect of a trade mark. On the 27th of April 2004, the company Dynamiki Zoi AE made an application for registration of a Community trade mark. The mark for which registration was sought was the word mark “FITCOIN” for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41.
Subsequently, on the 30th of December 2005, the applicant in this case, Coin SpA, gave notice of opposition to the trade mark registration in respect of all the goods and services covered in the application. It should be noted that the opposition was based on a number of earlier, national, international and Community figurative marks “COIN”.
The grounds which were relied on for the opposition were detailed in Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (now art 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009).
The Opposition Division rejected the opposition.
The Opposition Division held that even in the event that the goods and services covered by the application were identical and/or similar to those covered by the mark “COIN”, the marks themselves were sufficiently dissimilar visually and phonetically and, conceptually, they had no meaning.
It concluded that any likelihood of confusion was excluded. More
===========================================================================
Employment Law – Employment Lawyers - Summary Dismissal – Termination of Employment Contract - July 2010
In the case of Geys v Société Générale, London Branch [2010] the High Court determined when an employee’s employment contract was terminated by his employer. The court reached the conclusion that the employee's employment contract did not terminate on the date his employer informed him in writing that he was summarily dismissed. It also did not terminate on the date that a payment in lieu of notice was made to him. More
============================================================================
Data Protection: Information Commissioner Fines Council -July 2010
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) released a press release on 8 July 2010, stating that it had brought legal action against the London Borough of Barnet, West Sussex County Council and Buckinghamshire County Council for a systemic lack of staff training on how to handle personal information which resulted in the loss of sensitive personal information relating to thousands of children. More
=============================================================================
Employment Law – Unfair Dismissal – Breach of Contract - June 2010
The recent case of Botham v Ministry of Defence [2010] involved a decision relating to unfair dismissal and to whether an employer had breached the terms of the relevant contract.
The employee in this case had been employed for approximately fifteen years by the employer. The employee held a position as a youth community worker at a number of military bases around Germany. His employment could be terminated on three months' notice.
On the 10th of December 2002, he was suspended from work. Subsequently, he was charged with gross misconduct on the 4th of June 2003. The allegations made against him included that he had behaved inappropriately in relation to two teenage girls. Furthermore, his behaviour in respect of young people in general gave cause for concern.
Following disciplinary proceedings, the employee was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. His dismissal took effect on the 30th of September 2003. Furthermore, he was placed on the Department of Education and Skills’ list of individuals that are deemed unsuitable to work with children.
He then brought a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. More
========================================================================
Intellectual Property Law – Patent Law – Expiry of Patent – Late Renewal Fees - June 2010
The case of Betson Medical (Ireland) Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2010] involved a decision relating to section 28(3) of the Patents Act 1977, which stated:
“If the comptroller is satisfied that - (a) the proprietor of the patent took reasonable care to see that any renewal fee was paid within the prescribed period or that the fee and any prescribed additional fee were paid within six months immediately following the end of that period, the comptroller shall by order restore the patent on payment of any unpaid renewal fee and any prescribed additional fee.”
Prior to the proceedings in this case, B had filed an application for a patent in December 1996. Subsequently he assigned the application to the appellant in this case in October 1999. The appellant in this case was a company that B had incorporated for the purposes of the exploitation of his invention.
Even though both B and the appellant in this case were aware of the renewal date, due to financial constraints, the renewal fee was not paid for the patent in December 2003.
B had sought funding from both banks as well as private investors, however, the money was not made available to him in order to pay the renewal fee or the additional fee within the subsequent six months allowed under section 25(4) of the Patents Act 1977. More
|
==============================================================================
Data Protection: New Penalties – Information Commissioner - Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) (Maximum Penalty and Notices) Regulations 2010 - January 2010
The Information Commissioner will be granted new powers under (SI 2010/31), the Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) (Maximum Penalty and Notices) Regulations 2010 (“Regulations”) to be able to impose civil monetary penalties on data controllers for non-compliance. These Regulations will come into force on 6 April 2010.
Summary
· These Regulations make provision in relation to the power of the Information Commissioner to impose monetary penalty notices on data controllers under section 55A of the Data Protection Act 1998 (“the Act”)
· Regulation 2 prescribes £500,000 as the maximum amount the Information Commissioner may impose as a monetary penalty
· Regulation 3 prescribes the information that the Information Commissioner must include in a notice of intent, which the Information Commissioner serves on a data controller when the Information Commissioner intends to impose a monetary penalty
· Regulation 4 prescribes the information the Information Commissioner must include in a monetary penalty notice.
Non Compliance
The Regulations set out the maximum amount of monetary penalty and the minimum details to be contained in a notice of intent and in a monetary penalty notice (see below).
The Information Commissioner is able to serve a monetary penalty notice on a data controller if the Information Commissioner is satisfied there has been both a serious contravention by the data controller of the Eight Data Protection Principles and it was likely to cause substantial damage or distress. Such contraventions must be either deliberate or something which the data controller knew would occur (or ought to have known) and of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress, but in respect of which the data controller failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such occurrence.
· A penalty for knowingly or recklessly failing to comply with the data protection principles so as to create a substantial risk that damage or distress will be caused to any person
· A power for the Information Commissioner to inspect personal data and the circumstances surrounding its processing in order to assess whether or not any processing of the data is carried out in compliance with the Act
· A power for the Information Commissioner to require a data controller to provide him with a report by a skilled person
· Enhanced enforcement powers to enable the Information Commissioner to bring seriously unlawful processing to an immediate halt, to place formal undertakings on a statutory basis and to enable the Information Commissioner to take enforcement action to prevent breaches of the Act that are likely to occur
· Information notices that can be served on any person rather than just a data controller. More
==========================================================================
Intellectual Property Law – Trade Mark Law – Community Trade Mark – Opposition – Revocation – Abuse of Process - January 2010
In the European Court of Justice Decision in Stella Kunststofftechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2010] Case T-27/09, the ECJ held that if there were opposition proceedings pending against a trade mark it did not preclude a third party bringing revocation proceedings to cancel a trade mark registration. The ECJ held that revocation and opposition proceedings were distinct and autonomous proceedings.
The trade mark 'STELLA' was registered as a Community Trade Mark in respect of classes 6, 8, 16, 20 and 21 in 2001. An Intervener filed a Community Trade Mark application in 2004 for a device mark 'STELLA PACK' in respect of classes 4, 6, 16, 20 and 21. A notice of opposition was filed against the application for STELLA PACK.More
================================================================================
Archive US News
Archive UK and European News
|
Archive UK and European Legal Updates
For UK and European Articles click here
|
