NIPC Law

Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison and Arnold and Mr Justice Marcus Smith) Bentley Motors Limited v Bentley 1962 Limited and another [2020] EWCA Civ 1726 (16 Dec2020) This was an appeal by Bentley Motors Limited against Judge Hacon's decision in Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd [2019] EWHC 2925 (Ch) (1 Nov 2019) which I discussed in Trade Marks - Bentley 1962 Ltd and another v Bentley Motors Ltd.   on 3 Nov 2019.  In that decision, the learned judge held that Bentley Motors had infringed trade mark numbers  1180215 ,    2177779A  and  2505233  by marketing and distributing clothing and headgear with the word "BENTLEY" in combination with the motor company's winged "B" emblem. The above picture is an example of the use of the combination to which the claimants objected. Grounds of Appeal Bentley Motors' grounds of appeal were as follows.  First, the judge had been wrong to hold that the average consumer of clothing an

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Hornby Street (MCR) Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 3320 (IPEC) (30 Nov 2020) The first claimant has registered the following sign in the EU and UK as trade marks for clothes and various other goods. The second claimant is its exclusive licensee. They have brought proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC")  alleging trade mark infringement and passing off arising from the use of the following mark in the UK: Disputes had arisen between the previous owners of the Beverly Hills mark and the registered proprietor of the Santa Barbara mark,  These were settled in 1997 by a co-existence agreement which was governed by California law.  Clause 7 of that agreement contained the following provision: "Any controversy, dispute or claim with regard to, arising out of, or relating to this Agreement, including but not limited to its scope or meaning, breach, or

  Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss)  Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and another v Rinat Neuroscience Corp . [2020] EWHC 3359 (Pat) (7 Dec 2020) Interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium.  This pithy maxim is usually trotted out in  res judicata  cases but it can apply equally to a claim such as this.  It might even apply to attempts to frustrate the outcome of the recent US presidential election. According to the transcript, the claimants are about to launch a treatment for osteoarthritis called fasinumab .  They were prevented from doing so by three patents, namely: EP (UK) 2,270,048 ,  EP (UK) 2,305,711 , and EP (UK) 1,871,416. . The claimants applied for revocation of those patents to clear the way for the marketing of their treatment.  Two points to note about the patents is that the second and third of those patents were divisionals of the first and that all three patents were for second medical uses of known medicaments.  The defendant had counterclaimed for inf

Author  Subhrajyoti Saha,   Licence  CC BY-SA 4.0   Source  Wikipedia   Jane Lambert  Patents Court (Mr Justice Birss) Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 3248 (Pat) (23 Nov 2020) On 23 Nov 2020 Mr Justice Birss held a hearing to decide the consequences of his judgment in  Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2746 (Pat) (16 Oct 2020)  which I discussed in  Patents - Optis Cellular Technology LLC and others v Apple Retail UK Ltd and others   14 Nov 2020.  It will be recalled that the patent in suit was found to be valid and essential to the relevant standard, that the counterclaim for revocation failed and the claim for infringement on the basis of compliance with the standard succeeded.  The claimants were the clear winners and they were entitled to their costs. The first question for the judge was upon what basis those costs should be assessed.  The validity of the patent in suit had b