*Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

European Union Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action by Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Bayerische) for annulment of the decision by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). By that decision, OHIM had rejected Bayerische's appeal against OHIM's refusal to protect Bayerische's international registration of the word sign 'WORD PRO'. The General Court decided that Bayerische's single plea in law alleging infringement of art 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207-2009 (on the Community trade mark) was unfounded.

*Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

European Union Trade mark. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (Metropolis), established in Barcelona (Spain) against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of (OHIM) relating to opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and Metropolis concerning the proposed registration by Metropolis of the word sign 'METROINVEST' as a Community trade mark.

*Salvesen v Riddell and another

Agricultural holding Tenancy. The Supreme Court held that s72(10) of the was outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and had been incompatible with art1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, in circumstances where a landlord had been unable to benefit from s73 of the 2003 Act.

Ludsin Overseas Ltd v Eco3 Capital Ltd and others

Misrepresentation Fraudulent misrepresentation. The claimant company and its owner, Mr Lisitsin, had invested 2m in a project to purchase land for development that had been arranged by Mr Maggs, a company in which he was a shareholder, and Mr Balfour. The claimant had invested as a consequence of the inducement of Doctor Shadrin and a company of which he was the owner and Mr Balfour was a director. The claimant had not been told the full extent of the purchase structure and that additional profit was to be made as a consequence of that structure in which it would not receive a share. Ultimately, the scheme failed and the claimant received no returns on its investment. In proceedings brought for fraudulent misrepresentation, the judge found that the tort of deceit was proved and that Dr Shadrin and his company had acted as agents on behalf of Mr Maggs, his company and Mr Balfour. All five defendants were found jointly and severally liable. The defendants appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed that appeal, holding that the judge had not erred in her findings that the tort of deceit had been proved or that there had been a relationship of agency.

BMA Special Opportunity Hub Finance Ltd and others v African Minerals Finance Ltd

Contract Construction. The defendant had taken out a loan facility with the claimant lender. The defendant refinanced the loan and made an early repayment of the facility. It did not pay the 'prepayment' fee. The claimant commenced proceedings seeking that fee, which amounted to some US$17.5m. The judge dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal finding that, on the true construction of the facility agreement, the prepayment fee had not been payable in the circumstances.

*Apollo Tyres AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

European Union Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Apollo Tyres AG against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) concerning opposition proceedings between Endurance Technologies Private Ltd and Apollo Tyres AG.

Singh and another v Sanghera and others

Landlord and tenant Wrongful eviction. The claimants had purportedly sub-let a supermarket from the original tenant, who was subsequently made a judgment debtor due to owing rent arrears to his brother. Consequently, the claimants were evicted from the supermarket. The Chancery Division ruled on whether the claimants were entitled to damages for wrongful eviction or breach of contract or damages for wrongful interference of goods and-or restitution.

Lawlor v Sandvik Mining and Construction Mobile Crushers and Screens Ltd

Conflict of laws Jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a determination of a preliminary issue that an agency contract between the claimant and the defendant company had been governed by Spanish law in the absence of any express agreement between the parties as to the choice of law. The claimant had failed to show an implied choice of English law as a matter of reasonable certainty.

*Nestec S.A. and other companies v Dualit Ltd and others

Patent Infringement. The claimants brought an action against the defendants alleging the infringement of its patented coffee machine by supplying coffee capsules which were compatible with the claimants' 'Nespresso coffee. The Chancery Division held that the claimants' patent was not entitled to priority and lacked novelty. Even if the patent was valid, the defendants had not committed any act of infringement as they had been licensed to acquire and use compatible capsules with their machines.

Brigade (BBS-TEK) Ltd v Amber Valley Ltd

Patent Infringement. The Patents County Court considered the claimant's patent 'Improvements relating to locating devices' and held, inter alia, that the defendant had infringed claim 14 of the patent by selling and offering for sale its vehicle reversing alarm.