NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Arnold, Lady Justice Elizabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby) Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co. Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 532 (8 May 2026) This was an appeal by Bargain Busting Ltd ("BBL") against an interim injunction restraining threats of trade mark infringement proceedings granted by Mr Justice Miles (as he then was) on 27 May 2025 on the application of Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd ("SKE") for the reasons he gave in  Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) (21 May 2025).  I discussed that judgment in  Threats Actions - Bargain Busting v Shenzhen Technology   on 29 May 2925. Background The claimant, BBL was the registered proprietor of UK trade marks UK00003235344  ("344") and UK00003534551  ("551"), which the defendant, SKE, challenged on the grounds of non-use and invalidity. BBL also applied to register CRYSTAL BAR as a trade mark under ...

Jane Lambert   Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (His Honour Judge Hacon) Luxe World Ltd v Touch of Vogue Ltd and another [2026] EWHC 148 (IPEC) (30 Jan 2026) S.26C (1) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 provides that proceedings in respect of an actionable threat may be brought against the person who made the threat for— (a) a declaration that the threat is unjustified; (b) an injunction against the continuance of the threat; (c) damages in respect of any loss sustained by the aggrieved person by reason of the threat. An "actionable threat" in this context means a threat to sue for infringing a registered design. S.26A (1) states that a threat of infringement proceedings made by any person is actionable by any person aggrieved by such a threat, subject to the provisions of subsections 26A (2) to (5). S.26 (1) adds that a communication contains a “threat of infringement proceedings” if a reasonable person in the position of a recipient would understand from the comm...

Vape Cloud Chasing Author VAPES   Licence CC BY-2.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Miles)  Bargain Busting Ltd v Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1239 (Ch) (21 May 2025) Updated 16 May 2026 This was an application by Shenzhen SKE Technology Co Ltd (Shenzhen) to restrain Bargain Busting Ltd ("BB") from threatening trade mark infringement proceedings against Shenzhen's distributors and retailers.  BB is the registered proprietor of UK trade marks  UK00003235344  and  UK00003534551 , which Shenzhen has challenged on the grounds of non-use and invalidity.  BB has also applied to register CRYSTAL BAR  as a trade mark under trade mark number UK00003786148 .  Shenzhen responded to BB's threats by seeking an order under s .21C  to prevent BB from making further threats of proceedings against Shenzhen's distributors and retailers.  It also sought information o...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Pat Treacy)  JBC Distributors Inc and another v Mudahy (t/a Pak Cosmetic Centre) and another [2023] EWHC 1480 (IPEC) (23 June 2023) This was an application for summary judgement on a claim for trade mark infringement and the striking out of a defence and counterclaim for groundless threats and reimbursement for unsold stocks returned by Sainsbury's The applications came on before Pat Treacy sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 9 June 2023.   By para [43] of her judgment which she handed down on 23 June 2023, the learned deputy judge dismissed the summary judgment application and the application to strike out the defence (see J BC Distributors Inc and another v Mudahy (t/a Pak Cosmetic Centre) and another [2023] EWHC 1480).  She also struck out the counterclaim for reimbursement for unsold stocks but not the counterclaim for unjustified threats. The Claim The claimant is the registered proprietor...

Jane Lambert   Patents Court (Mr Justice Macaroli) Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd and others v Warner Lambert LLC and another [2021] EWHC 2182 (Ch) (30 July 2021) Each of the 35 claimants in these proceedings had been awarded an inquiry as to damages either for losses sustained as a result of an interim injunction that the defendants had agreed to pay or for losses resulting from threats of litigation that the court had held to be groundless.  Most of the claimants were pharmaceutical companies that supplied pregabalin  which they were allowed to distribute for the treatment of epilepsy and anxiety but not neuropathic pain.  The remaining claimants were the governments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the National Health Service that wished to treat patients for neuropathic pain with generic products. The Dispute Warner Lambert Company LLC was the proprietor of  EP0641330 B1  for isobutylgaba, of which pregabalin is a deriv...

The Rolls Building Author Judicial Office Licence CC BY-SA 4. 0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Last week I chaired 4 of the 5 daily sessions of Informa's Cambridge IP "Winter School"  and delivered 3 of the talks. The title of the last of those talks (which was also the last talk of the Winter School) was IP Litigation in England and Wale s. I offered that talk because not all the attendees in previous years' summer schools had been legally qualified and many of those who were so qualified were new to IP.  It seemed to me that there was not much point in discussing the complexities of IP litigation without a grounding in the basics. IP litigation differs from other types of civil litigation in many ways.  It has its own rules and practice direction.  Much IP business is conducted in specialist courts and all of the rest are in a specialist list in the Chancery Division.  IP litigation can be particularly expensive which is why threats to br...