Google was found not to restrict competition from competing suppliers of online maps in Great Britain by the prominent and preferential display of Google Maps

Streetmap.EU Ltd v Google Inc. & Ors [2016] EWHC 253 (Ch) (12 February 2016)

The claimant (Streetmap.eu Limited) contended that the defendants (“Google” for simplicity) had abused a dominant position in general search engines by the prominent and preferential display given to their own related online map product, thereby restricting competition from competing suppliers of online maps in Great Britain according to Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).

(more…)

...

The French Court of Cassation asked the Court of Justice whether a national of a third State who is in the international transit area of an airport is subject to the obligation to declare cash money

Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre commerciale, 5 janvier 2016, 14-17541

The present case concerned the rules on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community. The rules governing the movement of persons across borders are also discussed.

The company Intercontinental under Beninese law appointed Mr. X. to carry US dollars from Cotonou to Beirut with a transit at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport.
Subsequently, Mr. X. was inspected by the airport customs officers and was placed in customs restraint and under investigation by a judge for failure to declare cash and for money laundering and fraud.

(more…)

...

CARTIER and MONTBLANC were granted a website-blocking order so that their trade marks would not be infringed by marketing cheap copies

Cartier International Ltd & Anor v British Telecommunications Plc & Ors [2016] EWHC 339 (Ch) (23 February 2016)

In this case an injunction for blocking access to certain websites was sought according to Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC. The claimants owned registered trade marks which they used for the advertising and sale of their luxury goods. The defendants were the five main internet service providers (‘ISPs’) in the United Kingdom. It was alleged that certain websites were being used by their operators to infringe the claimants’ trade marks by marketing goods under those marks, typically cheap copies of the claimants’ goods.

(more…)

...