"Fantastic roster of talent" and recommended for being "very modern, forward-thinking and providing sound commercial advice" as well as offering instructing solicitors "a very broad skill set in the soft IP space."
Chambers & Partners 2017
"There are great people there at all levels and the clerks are very accommodating."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual property) 2014
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2014
"an impressive set with quality from the top
silk down to the most junior barristers."
Chambers & Partners (Information Technology) 2013
'A number of great IT and telecoms barristers.'
Legal 500 2010
'A veritable powerhouse of IP expertise'
Chambers and Partners 2011
"8 New Square brims with barristers experienced in fighting fiendishly complex, high-value IT and telecoms disputes."
Chambers & Partners 2014
The clerks are described as "helpful," "generous" and "very good at knowing what you want."
Chambers & Partners (Intellectual Property) 2013
'Practical and helpful clerks" provide a "smooth and personable service.'
Chambers and Partners 2011
'excellence on IT matters'
Legal 500 (Information Technology) 2010
"8 New Square is undoubtedly one of the leading sets for trade mark and copyright cases within the media and entertainment sphere, so much so that stablemates here frequently find themselves pitted against each other in major cases."
Chambers & Partners (Media & Entertainment) 2014
'An incredibly good set for IP matters'.
Legal 500 2010
'Top drawer IP set.'
Legal 500 2010
The Polo/Lauren Company v OHIM T-265/13
Case Summary | Judgment | 18 September 2014
Jonathan Hill recently acted for the Polo/Lauren Company, LP, the owner of the well known Ralph Lauren “Polo” brand, the applicant in proceedings before the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union challenging OHIM’s rejection of its opposition to the registration of a logo featuring a player of bicycle polo wielding a polo mallet. Polo/Lauren contended that the logo was a parody of its well-known polo player logo.
The General Court upheld the challenge, holding that OHIM’s Second Board of Appeal had been wrong to dismiss the opposition on the grounds that the mark applied for was not similar to the earlier trade marks relied upon. It found that there was some visual and, particularly, conceptual similarity between the logos, and the effect of these similarities outweighed the differences present such that it could not be said that there was no similarity between the marks at issue.
Jonathan Hill was instructed by King & Wood Mallesons SJ Berwin.