most interesting rulings | In Principle

On 18 December 2015 the Dutch Court of Appeal at The Hague issued an interim judgment in a closely watched case concerning liability for environmental injury caused by an oil spill from Shell’s pipelines in Nigeria.

In a case led by Wardyński & Partners, the firm obtained a ruling from the Supreme Court favourable to owners of buildings as well as communal tenants, establishing the rule of the liability of the City of Warsaw for non-contractual use of the property.

The varying definitions of life science products and applicable provisions of EU directives and regulations can confuse even the most experienced judges, as in the case of a recent preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice sought by the regional court in the German city of Krefeld.

Effective resignation by a member of the management board of a company is not an easy matter. The First President of the Supreme Court of Poland recently applied for a resolution on the matter by a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court.

Conceptual similarity between trademarks may be sufficient to find a risk of confusion even when there is little visual similarity between the marks, if the earlier mark has become highly distinctive through its use.

The Court of Justice has issued a judgment invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbour decision. This means that participation in the Safe Harbour programme by US entities is no longer grounds for European companies to transfer personal data of EEA citizens to the United States.

In August an arbitration award was issued in the case of the ship Arctic Sunrise, involving protests by ecologists on the Pechora Sea defending the Arctic environment. The ship was seized and 30 protesters were arrested by Russian authorities.

In evaluating the likelihood of confusion when conflicting names in a foreign language look similar, the meaning and pronunciation of the words in that language should be considered.

Lego figures are a toy for all. They develop not only the imagination, but also the line of European case law. Like Rubik’s Cube, they are reversing the tide of refusal to grant trademark protection to the shapes of products.

The General Court refused registration of a trademark of two parallel stripes on sports shoes. The difference in the number of stripes did prevent conflict with the adidas trademark of three stripes.

Although in theory it is possible to register a trademark in the form of a single colour, in Polish practice such marks are vanishingly rare. Essentially, such protection is possible only if the applicant proves “secondary distinguishing power”—showing that the target customers for the goods clearly associate the colour with a specific company.

The engineer’s task is to take necessary measures to ensure that the contract is performed correctly and on time. But not all actions by the engineer will directly affect the investor’s own rights and obligations.