On the job in Los Alamos are Los Alamos Landscaping & More, LLC and DIGS Construction, LLC. The two local businesses hosted a bi-weekly company-wide safety meeting while social distancing Monday in the UNM-LA parking lot. Los Alamos Landscaping owners Craig and Rachel Wehner provided breakfast from Secret City Kitchen for the crews during the meeting. The Wehners wanted to share how their companies have continued to work under the restrictive circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their employees practice social distancing and wear face masks made by Office Administrative Assistant Megan Tripp. The Wehners said as an essential business they are grateful to be working during this pandemic and very happy with the continued business from the community. Courtesy photo
MT Højgaard Found Not Guilty in Robin Rigg TrialThe Court of Appeal in London has ruled that MT Højgaard is not liable for the costs of repairing the foundations for the Robin Rigg offshore wind farm, off the Scottish coast.Dong Not Selling Wind BusinessDong Energy has denied recent suggestions of selling its offshore wind turbine division prior to an initial public offering.First Kentish Flats Extension Monopiles Good to GoThe first two foundations sets for Kentish Flats Extension (KFE) offshore wind farm were lifted on board Osprey Carrier II barge on Saturday morning.Sierra Club: “Block Island Wind Farm Is Our Apollo 11 Moment” (Gallery)Deepwater Wind launched the construction phase of its offshore wind project at Block Island, Rhode Island. Sierra Club said that this was a watershed moment for American clean energy development.ABB to Service Lynn and Inner Dowsing Offshore Wind FarmABB has secured an electrical services contract for the 194MW Lynn and Inner Dowsing offshore wind farm in the east of England.
Sabel BV v Puma AG and Rudolf Dassler Sport: C-251/95  All ER (D) 69 considered; Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc (formerly Pathe Communications Corp): C-39/97  All ER (EC) 934 considered; Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV: C-342/97  All ER (D) 652 considered; Medion AG v Hauptzollamt Duisburg: C-208/06; Canon Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld: C-209/06  All ER (D) 164 (Sep) considered; Adidas AG v Marca Mode CV: C-102/07  All ER (D) 147 (Apr) considered; Shaker di L Laudato & C Sas v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM): T-7/04  All ER (D) 144 (Nov) considered. (2) In relation to art 6(1)(b) of the Directive; first, the requirement to act in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters ‘constitutes in substance the expression of a duty to act fairly in relation to the legitimate interests of the trademark proprietor’. Secondly, the court should ‘carry out an overall assessment of all the relevant circumstances’, and in particular should assess whether the defendant ‘can be regarded as unfairly competing with the proprietor of the trademark’. Thirdly, an important factor was whether the use of the sign complained of either gave rise to consumer deception or took unfair advantage of, or was detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trademark. If it did, it was unlikely to qualify as being in accordance with honest practices. Fourthly, a mere likelihood of confusion would not disqualify the use from being in accordance with honest practices if there was a good reason why such a likelihood of confusion should be tolerated. In applying these principles the following factors were material: (i) whether the defendant knew or reasonably ought to have known of the existence of the trademark; (ii) whether the defendant had used the sign complained of in reliance on competent legal advice based on proper instructions; (iii) the nature of the use complained of, and the extent to which it was used as a trademark for the defendant’s goods or services; (iv) whether the defendant had known or ought to have known that the trademark owner had objected to the use of the sign complained of have at least appreciated that there was a likelihood that the owner would object; (v) whether the defendant had known, or should have know, that there had been a likelihood of confusion; (vi) whether there had been actual confusion, and if so whether the defendant had known that; (vii) whether the trademark had a reputation, and if so whether the defendant had known or at least should have appreciated that and whether the defendant knew, or ought to have known, that the reputation of the trademark would be adversely affected; (viii) whether the defendant’s use of the sign complained of interfered with the owner’s ability to exploit the trademark; (ix) whether the defendant had a sufficient justification for using the sign complained of; and (x) the timing of the complaint from the trademark owner (see  of the judgment). The instant was the first occasion in which the court had to consider the issue of use in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters in relation to art 6(1)(b) of the Directive. That made little difference to the principles to be applied (see  of the judgment). In the instant case, the two different uses complained of raised quite different considerations so far as honest practices were concerned. On the facts, in relation to Yorkshire Bitter, CB’s use of the white rose element of the sign had been in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. In relation to Yorkshire Warrior; CB’s use of the white rose element of the sign had been in accordance with honest practices until the end of October 2009, but had not subsequently (see ,  of the judgment). CB had a defence (see , of the judgment). Infringement – Unauthorised use of registered trademark Denise McFarland and Jeremy Heald (instructed by Travers Smith LLP) for the Samuel Smith. Mark Engelman (instructed by Walker Morris) for CB. Samuel Smith Old Brewery v Philip Lee (trading as Cropton Brewery): Chancery Division (Mr Justice Arnold): 22 July 2011 Och-Ziff Management Europe Ltd v Och Capital LLP  All ER (D) 07 (Nov) applied; Datacard Corporation v Eagle Technologies Ltd  All ER (D) 199 (Feb) applied; Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co v Putsch GmbH: C-100/02  All ER (D) 21 (Jan) applied; Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) v Deenik: C-63/97  All ER (EC) 235 applied; Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy: C-228/03  All ER (D) 305 (Mar) applied; Celine Sarl v Celine SA: C-17/06  All ER (D) 55 (Sep) applied; Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik  All ER (D) 196 (Oct) applied. (3) The ambit of the word aggrieved in s 21 of the Act was a question of law, but whether or not a person was aggrieved by a threat was a question of fact. The requirement to show that ‘the threats have or are likely to cause him damage which is not minimal’ did not mean that the claimant had to prove loss of identifiable contracts. It was sufficient to show that ‘his commercial interests are or are likely to be adversely affected in a real as opposed to a fanciful or minimal way’ (see ,  of the judgment). The first letter was a threat of infringement proceedings made to an important commercial customer of CB and normally the court would have no hesitation in concluding that the supplier had been a ‘person aggrieved’ by such a threat to its customer. However, in the unusual circumstances, where the allegedly infringing label had been designed by M&S, not CB, and there had been no evidence that the threat had adversely affected CB’s commercial relationship with M&S, CB had not established that it had been ‘a person aggrieved’ by the threat in relation to the first letter (see  of the judgment). The counterclaim would be dismissed (see  of the judgment). Article 5 of Council Directive (EC) 2008/95, so far as material, provides: ‘1. The registered trademark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade: … (b) any sign where … there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trademark.’ Article 6 of Council Directive (EC) 2008/95, so far as material, provides: ‘The trademark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit a third party from using in the course of trade: … (b) indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of goods or services; … provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.’ Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 Act, so far as material provides: ‘(1) Where a person threatens another with proceedings for infringement of a registered trademark … any person aggrieved may bring proceedings for relief under this section. (2) The relief which may be applied for is any of the following – (a) a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable … and the plaintiff is entitled to such relief unless the defendant shows that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened constitute (or if done would constitute) an infringement of the registered trademark concerned.’ The claimant brewery, Samuel Smith, (SS) was one of the oldest established and still trading breweries in the United Kingdom. A stylised white rose device (the trademark) was registered as a trademark being both distinctive of the brewery and a reminder to customers of SS’s strong connection with Yorkshire. SS applied to register the trademark in 1973. Cropton Brewery (CB), founded in 1984 in Yorkshire, agreed to supply Yorkshire Bitter to Marks & Spencer (M&S). The label for the beer was designed by or on behalf of M&S. The front of the label bore the words ‘Yorkshire Bitter’ printed on white on a red roundel which surrounded a slightly stylised white rose emblem with red accents. When Yorkshire Bitter came to the attention of SS it sent, on 10 December 2007, a letter before action to M&S alleging infringement of the trademark and passing off. The letter was not copied to CB, nor did M&S inform CB about the complaint at that time. In June 2009, SS brought a claim against CB alleging infringement and passing off in respect of Yorkshire Warrior, another beer produced by CB. From 9 September 2009, an informal licence granted by the Ministry of Defence for use of the Yorkshire white rose had been withdrawn in respect of Yorkshire Warrior in order to respect SS trademark rights. It was only when SS solicitor’s sent CB’s solicitors photographs of the products complained of on 14 September 2009, that it was made clear that the claim related to both products, namely Yorkshire Warrior and Yorkshire Bitter. On 30 October 2009, CB served a defence and counterclaim alleging that the letter of 10 December 2007 (the first letter) had been an unjustified threat of trade mark infringement proceedings contrary to s 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (the Act). The defence to counterclaim admitted the letter but denied that it was an actionable threat as CB was not a person aggrieved under s21 of the Act. A further letter was sent from SS solicitor’s on 7 July 2010 (the second letter)(see  of the judgment). Following failure to settle the matter came before the courts. Consideration was given to arts 5 and 6 of Council Directive (EC) 2008/95 (the Directive). Those provisions were implemented in the UK by s10(2),(3) and 11(2)(b) of the Act. Corresponding provisions were contained in arts 9(1)(b),(c) and 12(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 (the Regulation). The issues were, inter alia: (i) whether CB had infringed the trade mark by use of the Yorkshire Bitter label; (ii) whether CB had infringed the trademark pursuant to art 5(1)(b) of the Directive by use of the Yorkshire Warrior label; (ii) whether CB had a defence in respect of its infringement of the trademark by use of the Yorkshire Warrior label under art 6(1)(b) of the Directive in respect of the period to the end of October 2009; (iii) whether the first and second letters had been unjustified threats of trademark infringement proceedings under s 21 of the Act and whether it was an actionable threat. The court ruled: (1) It was established that the likelihood of confusion had to be appreciated globally through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods or services in question. The average consumer normally perceived a mark as a whole and did not proceed to analyse its various details. The ‘visual’ aural and conceptual similarities of the marks had normally to be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components, but it was only when all other components of a complex mark were negligible that it was permissible to make the comparison solely on the basis of the dominant elements. Nevertheless, the overall impression conveyed to the public by a composite trademark might in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components and it was quite possible that in a particular case an element corresponding to an earlier trademark might retain an independent distinctive role in a composite mark, without necessarily constituting a dominant element of that mark. A lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services might be offset by a great degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa. There was a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark had a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the use that had been made of it. Mere association was not sufficient. If the association between the marks caused the public to wrongly believe that the respective goods [or services] had come from the same or economically-linked undertakings, there was a likelihood of confusion (see  of the judgment). There was an important difference between the comparison of marks in the registration context and the comparison of mark and sign in the infringement context, namely that the former required consideration of notional fair use of the mark applied for, while the latter required consideration of the use that had actually been made of the sign in context (see  of the judgment). In the instant case, so far as Yorkshire Bitter was concerned, the identity of the goods and the distinctive character of the trademark favoured a likelihood of confusion, but the differences between the white rose device and the trademark, the remainder of the sign and the identification of CB as the producer on the front of the label all militated against it. SS’s dilatoriness in pursuing M&S and CB over the matter suggested that it had not considered that there had been a real likelihood of confusion. Yorkshire Bitter had only been included in the case because Samuel Smith had thought it would look odd to pursue Yorkshire Warrior without pursuing Yorkshire Bitter. The evidence of experience strongly suggested that there had been no likelihood of confusion. Overall, SS had had not established that there had been a likelihood of confusion. In regard to Yorkshire Warrior, the identity of the goods and the distinctive character of the trademark again favoured a likelihood of confusion. The white rose device was more similar to the trademark, and it was more a dominant element of the sign, than in the case of Yorkshire Bitter. Although there had been no evidence of actual confusion in practice, it was more difficult to place confidence in that as showing there was no likelihood of confusion than in the case of Yorkshire Bitter. Although the majority of consumers would not be confused. Overall, there was a ‘likelihood’ that some consumers would be confused into believing either that Yorkshire Warrior was a SS product or that it had some other connection with SS (see ,  of the judgment). Reymes-Cole v Elite Hosiery Co Ltd  RPC 102 applied; Brain v Ingledew Brown Bennison and Garrett (a firm) (No 3)  FSR 511 applied. (4) The meaning of the word ‘threat’ covered any intimation that would convey to a reasonable man that some person had trademark rights and intended to enforce them against another. It did not matter that the threat might be veiled or covert, conditional or future. Nor did it matter that the threat had been made in response to an enquiry from the party threatened. The conclusion as to whether a document amounted to a threat of patent proceedings was essentially one of fact. It was a jury-type decision to be decided against the appropriate matrix of fact. Thus a letter or a statement might on its face seem innocuous, but when placed in context it could be a threat of proceedings. The test was whether the communication would be understood by the ordinary recipient in the position of the claimant as constituting a threat of proceedings for infringement. It was immaterial that the threat was contingent (see  of the judgment). In the instant case, read against the relevant background, the letter of 7 July 2010 had not constituted or contained a threat of proceedings for infringement of a registered trademark by Samuel Smith (see  of the judgment). L’Oreal (UK) Ltd v Johnson & Johnson  All ER (D) 290 applied.
Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe now for unlimited access To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters
Griffin joined ISS in 2012 as general manager of Gibraltar, Iberia and North Africa and has extensive experience in commercial business development.He will remain based at ISS’ offices in Gibraltar, where he will be conveniently located and accessible to his many clients, said ISS. www.iss-shipping.com
A ‘valuable’ training day that takes place every year for part-time judges to learn from their senior colleagues has been scrapped after funding was cut, the criminal bar chief has said.The news, revealed by Chris Henley QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, in his latest weekly update, prompted him to declare: ‘Must everything in our criminal justice system be smashed to bits’.Henley said: ‘When you think that you’ve heard it all something comes along to make your jaw drop even faster and hit the floor even harder than ever.’Each year recorders and judges come together for an annual training day. This is an incredibly valuable experience for recorders who benefit enormously from undertaking the mock exercises in small groups with experienced judges, and formally and informally learning from the years of experience the full-time judiciary has built up in abundance.’But no more. The modest amount of money required to hold this event has been cut, so this Saturday’s gathering was the last one.The Gazette has since learned that all circuits hold this training day. The north-eastern circuit held one in Leeds last week, which was attended by around 100 judges and recorders. Another one is being held in Newcastle this week. These will be the last.The average cost to hold these training days is believed to be an estimated £15,000 to £20,000 a year. Many circuits hold their training sessions in court buildings during the weekend.One senior criminal practitioner, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Gazette: ‘These annual courses held across all circuits are going to be stopped. Apparently there is insufficient cash.’The years of experience of other judges will be lost unless these sorts of essential training days are retained. There is really helpful discussion as to sentencing guidelines, approach to sentence problems, pitfalls and general approach. It is a valuable learning tool and cannot be underestimated.’Unless there is funding, recorders will have little by way of training other than attendance at the Judicial College, which as it presently stands is attendance at Warwick once every three years for a two-day day residential course. We will simply be left without any effective training. Talk from on high about investment in the future judiciary sounds increasingly hollow.’A spokesperson for the judiciary said: ‘The provision of training for fee-paid judiciary in the courts has been the subject of a major review by the Judicial College. The resulting proposals mean that fee-paid judiciary now receive more continuation training but the circuit events referred to have been discontinued and the funds re-distributed. There is more training available in criminal, civil and family jurisdictions.’The new Judicial College courts training scheme launched in October 2018 for the training year from 1 April 2019. New two-day annual residential seminars are now embedded in the training programme.’
Leonie: ‘More needs to be done’Kayleigh Leonie, Law Society Council member for solicitors with 0-5 years’ PQE, said: ‘It is very concerning that one in 15 junior lawyers experienced suicidal thoughts. It is also disappointing to see that the number of junior lawyers experiencing mental ill-health has increased significantly from last year. Despite the positive efforts being made by some employers, it is clear that more considered action needs to be taken to support the wellbeing of junior lawyers in the profession.’Elizabeth Rimmer, chief executive of specialist support charity LawCare, said: ‘Every junior lawyer should know where to get help, this year’s survey results sends a strong message that raising awareness about why mental health matters for junior lawyers must be a key priority.’ The issue of stress among junior lawyers returns to the spotlight this week, with research showing that the proportion claiming to have recently experienced mental ill-health has risen sharply over the past year – and that 6.4% have experienced suicidal thoughts.These are among the findings of the third Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) resilience and wellbeing survey, published at the weekend. Of more than 1,800 respondents, 48% said they had experienced mental ill-health in the last month, up from 38% last year (an increase of 26%). Some 93.5% of respondents said they experienced stress in their role. A quarter of those experienced ‘severe/extreme’ levels of stress. The most frequently mentioned consequences of work-related stress were disrupted sleep (66%) and a negative impact on mental health, including anxiety, emotional upset, fatigue, and negative and depressed thoughts (60%). Meanwhile, 6.4% of respondents (amounting to more than 100 junior lawyers) said they had experienced suicidal thoughts.
Haiti says it is pleased with a decision by Suriname to regularize more than 1,500 Haitians who have been residing in the Dutch country.Consul General of the Republic of Haiti in Suriname, Alex Jospitre, accompanied by the Vice Consul Rosario Alexandre held what has been described as “important and fruitful meeting” with Justice and Police Minister, Ferdinand Welzijn, regarding the regularization of Haitians in the country.A statement issued following the talks noted that Welzijn had reiterated Suriname is moving to ease the uncertainty regarding the irregular situation facing the estimated 1, 800 Haitians who had been able to obtain temporary residence for a two-year period through an initiative undertaken by the Desi Bouterse government three months ago.Jospitre said he was pleased with the outcome of the talks and the initiative “because our regularized compatriots will soon be entitled to social benefits and civil rights such as access to health insurance coverage, driver’s license, authorization of work, the right to invest, the right to property, the possibility to marry foreigners, to move freely through and out of the country”.Possibility of extensionIn addition, Jospitre said that the meeting also explored other initiatives with the possibility of an extension of the process of legalization, which expired on December 20 last year, for the benefit of Haitians who could not meet the requested documents and funds in time.He said a request was made for the possibility of special treatment for Haitians who have entered Suriname illegally and who have not been included in the recent process of legalization.
A prominent Zimbabwean cleric, who prophesied that President Robert Mugabe would die this year, was on Thursday denied bail by a Harare magistrate on charges of offending other religions.Pastor Patrick Mugadza, 46, of the Remnant Church torched a storm when he predicted that Zimbabwe’s longtime ruler would die on October 17 this year. The cleric urged 92 yea-old Mugabe to confess to his sins and pray hard in order to avoid the impending death.Magistrate Vongai Muchuchuti ruled that the pastor had the propensity to commit crimes when he was on bail after finding that Mugadza committed the alleged offense while on bail on two other offences in which he was charged with criminal nuisance.Mugadza was also on bail on charges of wearing the southern African country’s national flag around his waist during a protest.One of his attorneys, Obey Shava, left the court in stitches after he asked the investigating officer in the current case when President Mugabe would die.“Why do you say that President Mugabe is not going to die on October 17? So are you challenging God’s power?” asked the attorney.However, Officer Mafion Muchena said he could not respond to that question, arguing that he was not aware of the status of Mugabe’s health. Mugabe often visits Singapore for his medical treatment routines. The magistrate ordered Mugadza to return to court on February 3 for commencement of his trial as his attorneys indicated that they may appeal the magistrate’s decision to deny him bail.Pastor Mugabe was not new to controversy. In 2015, he staged a one-man protest at the ruling Zanu-PF party’s annual conference in Victoria Falls demanding that Mugabe step down for failing to run Zimbabwe’s affairs.Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe with an iron fist since the country attained its independence from Britain in 1980.(News 24)
“It was a tough loss for us because it wasa close game since the start. But we will learn from this defeat and prepare forour future matches,” Leopards head coach Richard Gabayoyo said. With the victory, the J. CordonConstruction-DPWH 2nd District moved up to solo second spot in the standingswith 4-1 win-loss record. Both teams traded leads for most part ofthe match before J. Cordon Construction-DPWH 2nd District got away with thevictory through its clutch baskets and tight defense on the Leopards. ILOILO City – J. Cordon Construction-DPWH 2ndDistrict got back on the winning track in the Mayor Jerry P. TreñasBasketball Tournament at the Jaro Gymnasium here. On Friday night it posted an 87-84escape win over the Guimaras Leopards, which skidded to its second consecutivedefeat. The Leopards dropped to 3-2 win-losscard. Action resumes today with the E&CTrucking Asialink facing TEJ Builders at 5:30 p.m. to be followed by the matchupbetween Uniwheels and P. Doce SBC-Iloilo Doctors College at 7 p.m./PN