NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Bei Yu Industrial Co v Nuby (UK) LLP   [2022] EWHC 652 (IPEC) (22 March 2022) This was an account of profits. In the Chancery Division which deals with most intellectual property claims infringement proceedings take place in two phases. There is a hearing known as a "trial" to determine whether the right has been infringed and by whom.  In the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or IPEC that takes place some 15 months or so after the issue of the claim form. If the claimant is successful at trial, the court usually orders the defendant to stop the infringement on pain of imprisonment or other punishment for disobedience.   If the successful claimant so wishes, the court will then decide how much money the defendant should pay him or her for the past infringement. Claimants have a choice.  They can request compensation for the loss or damage they may have sustained as a r...

Oskar Schlemmer's Bauhaus Emblem   Jane Lambert On 25 Jan 2022, the Intellectual Property Office  ("the IPO") announced a call for views on the legal protection of designs in the United Kingdom (see the IPO Press release IPO launches call for views on designs system   25 Jan 2022). This call for views follows a survey aimed at people who do not consider themselves experts on  IP but who have an interest in designs and their protection which closed on 11 Feb 2022.  The reason for the review is that the UK has left the European Union and has an opportunity to change its design law. The Current Law In Design  I wrote: "In everyday language. we talk of design as something that is functional as in the shape of the fuselage of an aircraft or the arrangement of components in a circuit or as something aesthetic such as a garment or accessory or an item of furniture. That distinction is reflected in the law that provides different regimes for the protection of...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Mr David Stone)  Rothy's Inc v Giesswein Walkwaren AG  [2020] EWHC 3391 (IPEC) (16 Dec 2020) This is a case about the design of shoes which is more interesting than many of the other designs that have come before the courts recently.  It is also possibly the last time an English court will have sat as a Community design court.  Mr David Stone, who tried the case as a deputy judge of the High Court, remarked at paragraph [9] of his judgment t hat   "As things currently stand, this Court will be unable to sit as a Community Design Court after 11pm UK time on 31 December 2020, given the current end date to the transition period following the UK's departure from the European Union." The Issues The claimant company,  Rothy's Inc. ("Rothy's"), is the registered proprietor of  registered Community design number 4500932-0002 for shoes  ("the RCD").  It also claimed to be entitled to an ...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Melissa Clarke)  Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin, Inc and another [2019] EWHC 3149 (IPEC) (20 Nov 2019) This was an action for the infringement of registered Community designs  and unregistered design right  and a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of one of those RCDs.  The action and counterclaim were tried by Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke on 23 and 24 Sept 2019. She delivered her judgment on 20 Nov 2019 the transcript of which is at  Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin, Inc. and another [2019] EWHC 3149 (IPEC) (20 Nov2019) The Parties The claimant is a Northern Irish company called Shnuggle Ltd.  ("Shnuggle") which designs, makes and markets baby products. The first defendant, Munchkin Inc.  ("Munchkin") is a much bigger American company in the same industry. The second defendant, Lindam Ltd. , ("Lindam") distributes Munchkin's products in the UK. The Registered Designs Shnuggle...

Author: S Solberg J Licence Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Ever since the referendum and indeed before it I have tried to anticipate the legal protection for brands , designs , technology  and creativity  if and when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union (see Were we to go - what would Brexit mean for IP?   26 Feb 2016, What Sort of IP Framework do we need after Brexit and what are we likely to get?   3 July 2016  and IP Planning for Brexit 7 Dec 2018).  Much will depend on the terms upon which we leave the EU and our relationship after departure. Since the 23 Aug 2018 the government has published guidance on  How to prepare if the UK leaves the EU with no deal .  That guidance covers everything from Applying for EU Funded Programmes to Workplace Rights.  I commented about it in And if there is no deal ..................   24 Aug 2018 NIPC Brexit,  Topics in...

Jane Lambert A rather more interesting Brexit Briefing this month  because the UK has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement.  The article sets out the background to ratification and considers whether it will make a difference.  Also discussed are the proposals to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and indications that HMG will accept the backstop arrangements for birder checks between Great Britain and both parts of the island of Ireland set out in the draft withdrawal agreement notwithstanding political and constitutional challenges to which that could lead. Finally, there is the agenda for discussions on the future partnership between the UK and EU after Brexit which would include services and some encouraging remarks about the city of London from Monsieur Barnier at the Eurofi High Level Seminar in Sofia on 26 April 2018. More

Houses of Parliament Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert The action arising from groundless threats has been one of the most perplexing features of our  intellectual property law  both for foreign owners of IPR in this country and their legal advisors (see Prince Plc v Prince Sports Group Inc [1998] FSR 21) and even non-specialist lawyers in the United Kingdom (see Brain v Ingeledew Brown Benson and Garrett and another  [1996] FSR 341). Under s.70 of the Patents Act 1977  and similar provisions in other IP legislation, a letter threatening proceedings that would be quite acceptable in most countries and even in the UK in respect of most other causes of action can land the lawyer or attorney who wrote it, and the client on whose behalf the letter was written, in a whole heap of trouble that sometimes results in an infringer getting away with his or her wrongdoing. S.70 (1) provides: "Where a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled ...