NIPC Law

           Jane Lambert Chancery Division ( Mr David Stone) Original Beauty Technology and others v G4K Fashion Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 294 (Ch) (24 Feb 2021) This was an action for infringement of unregistered design right and unregistered Community designs  and passing off .  The designs in question were of women's garments in the bodycon and bandage styles. The action came on for trial before Mr David Stone on various dates between 30 Nov and 21 Dec 2020. In  Original Beauty Technology and others v G4K Fashion Ltd and others [2021] EWHC 294 (Ch) which he handed down on 24 Feb 2021 he found that the defendants had infringed some of the first claimant's unregistered design rights and unregistered Community designs but they had not passed off their business as or for the claimants', Following his judgment, there were further hearings on the terms of the minute of order, whether garments in different colourways infringed...

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal ( Lord Justices Lewison and Arnold and Sir Nicholas Patten) Geofabrics Ltd v Fiberweb Geosynthetics Ltd (Rev 1) [2021] EWCA Civ 854 (11 June 2021) In  Geofabrics Ltd v Fiberweb Geosynthetics Ltd [2020] EWHC 444 (Pat) (5 March 2020) which I discussed in  Patents - Geofabrics Ltd v Fiberweb Geosynthetics Ltd.   on 12 March 2020, Mr David Stone, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, held that Geofabrics Ltd.'s    European patent (UK) 2 430 238 for a "trackbed liner and related methods " was valid and infringed by the defendant company, Fiberwed Geosynthetics Ltd.  Fiberweb applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against Mr Stone's judgment. Lord Justice Floyd allowed Fiberweb to appeal on the grounds that (1) the deputy judge had erred in his construction of claim 1 of the Patent, and as a result, had wrongly found that  Fiberweb's Hydrotex 2.0 product ("Hydrotex") fell within the scope of the c...

"What's in a Name?" By John Massey Wright - Folger Shakespeare Library Digital Image Collection http://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/s/8msouv, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40859850   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels) Alyssa Smith Jewellery Ltd v Alisa Goodstone t/a Alyssa Jewellery Desig n [2021] EWHC 1482 (IPEC) (9 June 2021) This was an action for passing off . The claimant is a company that designs, produces and sells jewellery. It is named after its founder and sole director, Ms Alyssa Smith. The defendant is also a jewellery designer.  Her first name is Alisa but she trades as "Alyssa Jewellery Design" (one of "the Defendant's Signs")  As the learned recorder, Amanda Michaels, noted in the first paragraph of her judgment, these proceedings arise out of the defendant's adoption of the trading name 'Alyssa Jewellery Design' for her own jewellery business. Th...

Author The Lud   Licence Copyright waiver   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Lord Justice Warby) Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 1245 (Ch) (12 May 2021) At a directions hearing before Lord Justice Warby on 5 May 2021, His Lordship granted summary judgment to the Duchess of Sussex in her claim for copyright infringement against the publisher of The Mail on Sunday and The Mail Online. He made a number of consequential orders and gave directions for the taking of an account of profits.  His judgment in  Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 1245 (Ch) (12 May 2021) sets out the reasons for those orders and directions. The Litigation The Duchess of Sussex sued Associated Newspapers because The Mail on Sunday and The Mail Online published large extracts of a letter that she wrote to her father.  Her causes of action were misuse of private information, breach of her statutory rights under the Data Protection Act 1998 and ...

Florence Foster Jenkins  by G B Bain   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Justice Meade) Martin and another v Kogan [2021] EWHC 1242 (IPEC) (19 May 2021) Florence Foster Jenkins  seems to have been a rather good film about a less than good opera singer. The idea for the film seems to have been Julia Kogan's.  After a trial before Judge Hacon ( Martin and Another v Kogan [2017] EWHC 2927 (IPEC) (22 Nov 2017)) an appeal to the Court of Appeal ( Martin and another v Kogan [2019] EWCA Civ 164) and a retrial before Mr Justice Meade, the learned judge found that Ms Kogan was a joint author of the screenplay and that her contribution was 20% (see Martin and another v Kogan [2021] EWHC 24 (Ch) (11 Jan 2021)).  I discussed that litigation in  What constitutes Joint Copyright? Martin v Kogan   29 Dec 2017,  Joint Copyright - The Appeal in Martin and Another v Kogan   16 Oct 2019 and  Joint Copyright - The Retrial in Mart...

Usury Author Albrecht Durer "Ship of Fools"   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Ian Karet)  FBT Productions, LLC v Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution Ltd [2021] EWHC 1316 (IPEC) (17 May 2021) S.15 and Sched 1  of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 inserted a new s.35A (1) into the Senior Courts Act 1981: "Subject to rules of court, in proceedings (when-ever instituted) before the High Court for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgement is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as rules of court may provide, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgement, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and— (a) in the case of any sum paid before judgement, the date of the payment; and (b) in the case of the sum for which judgement is given, the date of the judgement." In    FBT Productions, LLC v Let Them Eat Vinyl D...

  Jane Lamber t Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Claydon Yield-O-Meter Limited v Mzuri Ltd and anothe r [2021] EWHC 1007 (IPEC) (22 April 2021) This was a claim by Claydon Yield-O-Meter Limited ("Claydon") against Mzuri Ltd ("Mzuri") and its director for the infringement of GB  2 400 296 for an “Improved seed drill” (“296”)  and EP2051576 (“576”) also for an improved seed drill . There was also a counterclaim by Mzuri for the revocation of those patents. The action and counterclaim came on for trial before HH Judge Hacon between 24 and 26 Feb 2021. The learned judge delivered judgment on 22 April 2021 (see  Claydon Yield-O-Meter Limited v Mzuri Ltd and another [2021] EWHC 1007 (IPEC) (22 April 2021). By para [155] of his judgment, he found that 296 was invalid but had it been valid it would have been infringed. He also found 576 not to be valid and not to have been infringed. Issues Judge Hacon considered first whether 296 had been infri...