NIPC Law

Author Stahlkocher   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon) Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another   [ 2023] EWHC 2005 (IPEC) (7 Aug 2023) This was a counterclaim by the defendants for the invalidation and revocation of the first claimant's  trade mark number 905883806 .  The mark was AC COBRA registered for automobiles, cars and sports cars. The claimants had brought proceedings for infringement of that trade mark but they discontinued their claim shortly before the trial.  The counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon on 4 July 2023.  By para [84] of his judgment of 7 Aug 2023, the learned judge dismissed the counterclaim ( Acedes Holdings LLP and another v Cliver Sutton Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 2005). The Issues Judge Hacon identified the issues in para [7] of his judgment: "(1) Whether AC Cobra Mark was invalidly...

C ontains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 . Jane Lambert The CEO of the Intellectual Property Office, who is known as "the registrar" in trade mark proceedings pursuant to s.62 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, exercises judicial as well as executive functions.  He or she adjudicates disputes between applicants for trade marks and examiners known as ex parte proceedings. The registrar also decides disputes between applicants or registered proprietors and third parties that are known as  inter pates proceedings". The registrar's judicial functions are performed on his or her behalf by officials known as "hearing officers" though they are not mentioned in the legislation.  I discussed ex parte hearings in If the examiner says "no" - ex parte hearings in the Trade Marks Registry   in NIPC London on 10 Aug 2015 and inter partes hearings in Oppositions in the IPO's Trade Mark Registry   in the same publicati...

Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Floyd and Arnold and Lady Justice Nichola Davies) Genentech Inc v Comptroller and Master Data Center v Comptroller   [2020] EWCA Civ 475 (31 March 2020) These were appeals from the decision of Mr Recorder Campbell QC in Master Data Center, Inc v Comptrolle r [2020] EWHC 572 (Pat) (11 March 2020) which I blogged in Supplementary Protection Certificates - Master Data Center, Inc v The Comptroller   on   18 March 2020.  The cases are remarkable for the speed with which they progressed from the hearing officer to the Court of Appeal.  They were before Mr  Micklewright on 21 Feb 2020 (see  R e Genentech, Inc. and Master Data Center, Inc . BL O/111/20 21 Feb 2020), Mr Campbell on 4 March 2020 and the Court of Appeal on 26 of that month ( Genentech Inc v Comptroller and Master Data Center v Comptroller [2020] EWCA Civ 475 (31 March 2020).   The cases are also remarkable for being...

As I indicated in  How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law   JD Supra 21 June 2014 s.16 of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 amends s.74A and s.74B of the Patents Act 1977 and inserts three new subsections into s.73. The upshot as explained in paragraph 4  and paragraph 5  of the IPO's guide Expansion of the Patent Opinions Service: business guidance is that the range of questions upon which an examiner's opinion can be obtained has been expanded and the Comptroller now has power to revoke patents which are found to be invalid. Where to find the Law The Patents Act 1977 has now been amended by art 3 and the Schedule  to The Intellectual Property Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2014 (SI 2014 No 2330) (see Jane Lambert  The Intellectual Property Act 2014 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2014   6 Sept 2014) and corresponding changes to the Paten...