Adtech is the technology of advertising and refers to all
technologies, software and services used for delivering,
controlling and targeting online ads. This market sits at the
convergence of the technology, media and telecoms sectors. Rapid
growth is driving activity at startup level and larger...
Maass v Musion Events Ltd and others  EWHC 1346 (Comm) is a rare example of a successful challenge to an arbitration award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award. The case confirms the correct test to be applied by the court in deciding if there has been a serious irregularity.
The decision in DNB Bank ASA v Gulf Eyadah Corporation and another (DIFC CFI 043-2014) concerns the hotly debated topic of parties using the DIFC courts as part of their enforcement strategies to enforce foreign judgments and arbitration awards in onshore Dubai and the wider United Arab Emirates.
Facts The Claimant, Sofa Workshop, owned two CTMs for the word mark SOFA WORKSHOP. The registrations covered various types of furniture, textile, homeware accessories and retail services of a general store specialising in household furniture. The Claimant used the CTMs extensively in the UK but their use outside the UK was limited to advertisements in UK magazines which were distributed across Europe.
The Commercial Court’s recent decision in Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Private Limited  EWHC 1452 (Comm) is a poignant reminder of the need for parties to challenge arbitral awards (whether partial or final) promptly and within 28 days under section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
In a judgment handed down on 14 July 2015, the High Court has found that there should be a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union on important issues concerning the legality of a tax imposed on overseas gambling operators.