Author:
Santanu Mukherjee
Search for other papers by Santanu Mukherjee in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

wto Cases

  • Australia – certain measures concerning trademarks, geographical indications and other plain packaging requirements applicable to tobacco products and packaging, wt/ds435/r, wt/ds441/r, wt/ds458/r, wt/ds467/r.

  • Brazil – Measures affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, wto, wt/ds332/ab/r, 3 December 2007.

  • Canada – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical Products, wt/ds114/r (2000).

  • China – Measures Affecting Imports of Automobile Parts (wt/ds342/ab/r) 15 December 2008.

  • China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, wt/ds363/ab/r, 21 December 2009.

  • China – Measures related to the Exportation of various Raw Materials – wt/ds394/ab/r, 2012.

  • Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry, wt/ds366/r, 2009.

  • Dominican Republic – Measures affecting the importation and internal sale of cigarettes, wto, wt/ds302/ab/r, 25th April 2005.

  • European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, wt/ds27/ab/r, 1997.

  • European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, wt/ds135/ab/r, 12 March 2001.

  • European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, wt/ds246/ab/r, 7 April 2004.

  • European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, wt/ds290/r; 20th April 2005.

  • European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, wt/ds400 & 401/ab/r, paragraph 5.87, 18 June 2014.

  • India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products – wt/ds90/r, paragraphs 5.128 and 5.129, 1999.

  • India – Measures affecting the Automotive Sector, wt/ds146/ab/r; wt/ds175/ab/r, 19 March 2002.

  • India – Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules (wt/ds456/ab/r) 16 September 2016.

  • Japan – Trade in Semi-Conductors, bisd l/6309–35S/116, 24th March 1988.

  • Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages case, wt/ds8/ab/r, wt/ds10/ab/r and wt/ds11/ab/r, of 4th October 1996 and Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages case, wt/ds75/ab/r, wt/ds84/ab/r of 18th January 1999.

  • Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Some Dairy products, wt/ds98/ab/r, 14th December 1999.

  • Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, wt/ds161/ab/r, 11 December 2000, wt/ds169/ab/r, 12 March 2001.

  • Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, wt/ds308/ab/r, 6 March 2006.

  • Russia – Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit, Panel Report wt/ds512/r, 5 April 2019.

  • Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, ab decision wt/ds34/ab/r, 1999.

  • United States – Denial of Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment as to Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil, ds18/r, adopted, b.i.s.d. 39S/128, 19 June 1992.

  • United States – Measures affecting Alcoholic and Malt Beverages, ds23/r, b.i.s.d. 39S/206. adopted 19 June 1992.

  • United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline – Report of the Appellate Body (wt/ds2/ab/r), 29th April 1996.

  • United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, wt/ds58/ab/r, 12 October 1998.

  • United States – Measures affecting the cross-border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, wto, wt/ds285/ab/r, 7th April 2005.

National and Regional Cases

  • Betts v. Willimott, [1871] 6 l.r.Ch. 239, 245.

  • Adam v Burke, 84 U.S. 453 (1873).

  • Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539.

  • Holiday v. Mattheson, 24 Fed. 185–1866 (c.c.s.d.n.y. 1885).

  • Boesch v. Graff 133 US 697 (1890).

  • E. Bement & Sons v National Harrow Co., 1Boesch86 U.S. 70, 91 (1902).

  • United States v Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942).

  • Sanofi S.A. v. Med-Tech Veterinarian Products Inc. 565 F. Supp. 931 (1983).

  • Jazz Photo Corp. V. International Trade Commission, 264 F. 3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001), U.S. Supreme Court No. 01–1158, filed February 6, 2002.

  • Quanta Computer, Inc., et al. v. lg Electronics, Inc. (No. 06–937) 453 F. 3d 1364, reversed (Supreme Court, 9 June, 2008).

  • Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, 657 F.3d 1341 (Fed. circ. 2011) and Bowman v Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1761, 1766 (2013).

  • Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc., 137 S Ct. 1523 (2017).

  • Brunswick Corp. v Orian Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (1969), 1 Mutai / Saishu 160, Osaka District Court, 9th June, 1969.

  • Tokyo District Court’s decision in bbs Wheels, Wa-No. 16565 of 1992.

  • Strix decision in bbs Wheels, Ne-No. 3272 of 1994.

  • Supreme Court of Japan decision in bbs Wheels, Wo-No. 1988 of 1997.

  • Stauffer Chemical Co. v Agricura Ltd. 1979 bp 168 (cp).

  • Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd. (2008) i.a. No. 7441 of 2008 in c.s. (os) No. 1206 of 2008 (India).

  • Kodak v Jumbo-Markt ag, 4C.24/1999/rnd, 7 December 1999.

  • Generics BV v Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd., rpc 801 (1997).

  • ‘Karate’ of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) dated 14th December, 1999, Case No. x zr 61/98.

  • The Canadian Federal Court of Appeal in trademark case, Smith & Nephew Inc. v Glen Oak Inc., (1996) 68 c.p.r. (3d) 153, before the Supreme Court of Canada in patent case, Eli Lilly and Co. v Novopharm Ltd. (1998), 80 c.p.r. (3d) 321 at 352.

  • Thailand Court Decision No. 16/2542 (1999).

  • Supreme Court of Thailand’s Decision No. 2817/2543 (2000).

  • Yu v. Court of Appeals, 217 scra 328–333 (1993).

  • U–Bix Corporation v. Ariancorp International Inc. ca g.r. No. 41260, 1995.

  • Société Anonyme des Manufactures de Glaces v Tilghman’s Patent Sand Blast Company (1883) 25Ch. D1 (ca).

  • Dunlop v Longlife (1958) r.p.c. 473 and Goodyear v Lancashire Batteries (1958) l.r. 1 r.p. 22 at 35.

  • Beecham Group Ltd. v International Products Ltd., (1968) r.p.c. 129 and fsr 162.

  • United Wire Ltd. v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) and Others, House of Lords, 4 All E R 353 (2000).

  • GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission of the European Communities, Case No. T-168/01 [2006] e.c.r. ii-2969.

  • National Phonograph Co. of Australia v. Menck [1911] 28 r.p.c. 229.

  • Lever Brothers Co v United States of America, eta al., 877 F.2d 101 (d.c. Cir. 1989).

  • Lever Brothers Co v United States of America, eta al., 981 F. 2nd 1330 (d.c. Cir. 1993).

  • The hag case in EU Case C 10/89, sa cnl sucal nv v hag gf ag.

  • Consten SaRL and Grundig GmbH v Commission of eec (1966), Case 56/64.

  • Consten S.à.R.L. snd Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v. Commission of the European Community, Joined cases Nos. 56/54 and 58/64, (1966) ecr 299.

  • GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission of the European Communities, Joined Case Nos. C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P, e.c.r. i-9291, 2009.

  • Usedsoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp, Case No. C 128/11, 3 c.m.l.r. 44, 2012.

  • Merck & Co. Inc. v Stephar BV and Petrus Stephanus Exier, Case No. 187/80, July 14, 1981.

  • Centrafarm BV v. Sterling Drug Inc., 87 Case No. 15/74, 31st October 1974 [1974] 2 cmlr 480, [1974].

  • Centrafarm BV v. Winthrop BV, Case 16/74, ecli:eu:c:1974:115.

  • Bayer AG v Commission of the European Communities, Joined Cases Nos. C-2/01P C-3/01P, (T-41/96) [2000] e.c.r. ii-3383; [2001] 4 c.m.l.r.

  • Polydor Limited and rso Records Incorporated v Harlequin Record Shops Ltd. and Simons Records Limited, Case 270/80 [1982], ecr 329.

  • Mag Instrument Inc. v California Trading Company Norway, Case E-2/97 [1997], efta Ct. Rep. 129.

  • Deutsche Grammophon Geselischaft mbH v Metro-sb Grossmarkte GmbH & Co. kg, Case No. 78/70, 1971 ecr 487, 1971 cmlr 631.

  • Parke, Davis and Co. v Probel, Reese, Beintema-Interpharm and Centrafarm, Gerechtshof’s-Gravenhage-Netherlands, Case 24/67, 1968, ecli:eu:c:1998:11.

  • Pharmon BV v Hoechst AG, Case No. 19/84, ecr 2281 (1985).

  • Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd. and Merck Sharp & Dohme International Services bv v Primecrown Ltd., Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Bharat Himatlal Mehta and Necessity Supplies Ltd. and Beecham Groupp plc v Europharm of Worthing Ltd., Joined cases, C 267/95 and C 268/95, ecri 6285 (1996).

  • Silhouette International Schmied GmbH and Co. kg v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Case C-355/96, ecli:eu:c:1998:374.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 58 52 3
PDF Views & Downloads 0 0 0