NIPC Law

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...

Author John Speed    Source Wikimedia  Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Count  (Daniel Alexander KC)  Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd   [2023] EWHC 138 (Pat) (25 Jan 2023) On 23 Dec 2022, Mr Daniel Alexander KC delivered a remarkable judgment in Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd [2022] EWHC 3200 which I discussed in  Patents: Oxford University Innovation Ltd v Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd   on 23 Jan 2023 and in  Student Inventors and their Universities - Ownership of IP in Inventions resulting from Students' Research   on 26 Jan 2023. Mr Alexander upheld a claim for royalties by Oxford University Innovation Ltd ("OUI") the technology transfer arm of Oxford University against Oxford Nanoimaging Ltd ("ONI").  The royalties were for a licence to work patents for inventions that had been invented by one of the University's research students while he had been working at Oxford as an in...

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare [2021] EWHC 107 (Pat) (26 Jan 2021) I discussed Nicholas Caddick QC's decision in  Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare Limited [2021] EWHC 3 (Pat) (18 Jan 2021) in   Patents - Coloplast A/S v Salts Healthcare Limited.   on 16 Feb 2021. It will be recalled that the claimant won everything except on obviousness.  As that was enough to defeat the action the learned deputy judge found for the defendant. On 21 Jan 2021, he had to deal with the form of order.   The following issues were in dispute: "a. Whether to make an issue-based costs order; b. The level of interim payment to award on account of costs; c. Whether to award an interim payment in respect of interest on costs; and d. Whether to grant Coloplast permission to appeal." Whether to make an Issue-Based Order Mr Caddick said at para [3] of his order: "It is common ground that Salts was the overall winner of the...

Author Ham - Licence CC BY-SA 3.0, Source Wikipedia  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices David Richards, Newey and Arnold)  TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1182 (8 Sept 2020) This was a judgment on two appeals.  The first appeal was brought by John O'Boyle ("Mr O'Boyle") against an order by His Honour Judge Keyser QC  permitting TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd, ("TBD") to bring committal proceedings for contempt of court against Mr O'Boyle in TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons  [2019] EWHC 2390.  The second was by TBD against Mr Justice Marcus Smith's order in  TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and others   [2020] EWHC 30 (Ch) which I blogged in  Search Orders - TBD (Owen Holland) Ltd v Simons and Others   on 22 Jan 2020.   Both appeals arose from the execution of an order for the search of Mr O'Boyle's home and the premises of his former company G2A Limited ("G2A") on 9 Nov 2018. ...

Jane Lambert Chancery Division  (Lord Justice Arnold)  Sky Ltd and others v Skykick UK Ltd and another [2020] EWHC 1735 (Ch) (2 July 2020) On 9 May 2020, I wrote in Trade marks - Sky v Skykick, The Final Chapter : "Thus endeth a lawsuit that required three hearings before Lord Justice Arnold as he now is, one to the Court of Appeal and another to the CJEU. Sky scraped home on electronic mail services but not much else. The Sky companies lost their passing off claim and part of their goods and services specification. The excursion to Luxembourg did result in a ruling that lack of clarity and precision is not fatal to a trade mark registration and that bad faith in applying for registration of some goods and services does not vitiate the whole mark." Only the litigation didn't end.  There was a further hearing before Lord Justice Arnold on 2 July 2020 to argue the terms of the final order (see  Sky Ltd and others v Skykick UK Ltd and a...