NIPC Law

Century and Harbor Freeway Interchange Author Remi Jouan   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR, Dame Victoria Sharp, President, Lord Justice Bean)  HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1810 (2 Dec 2021) This was an appeal against the decisions of Mr Justice Warby in  HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch)  on 11 Feb 2021 and HRH Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd . [2021] EWHC 1245 (Ch) on 12 May 2021.   I discussed those judgments in  Summary Judgment - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers   and   Copyright - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd   on 12 Feb and 13 June 2021 respectively.  The Litigation The duchess sued the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline after they had reproduced and commented upon large passages from a handwritten letter that she had sent to her father.  Her causes of action were misuse of

Rolls Building Author Roger Green   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source   Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Costa v Dissociadid Ltd. and another [2021] EWHC 3275 (IPEC) (2 Dec 2021) On 19 Nov 2021, the recorder Ms Amanda Michaels, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, heard two strikeout and summary judgment applications. One from the claimant and the other from the defendants. The applications arose in a copyright claim. The claimant accused the defendants of using scripts and other materials without his permission. The defendants said that he had agreed that they could use those materials.  They counterclaimed for breach of contract, breach of a non-disclosure agreement and unlawful interference. with their YouTube channel.  The defendants applied for the claim to be struck out on 3 Nov 2021.  The claimant applied for parts of the defence and counterclaim to be struck out on 5 Nov 2021. Each side contended that the o

    Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Oatly AB and another v Glebe Farm Foods Ltd [2021] EWHC 2189 (IPEC) 5 Aug 2021 This was an action for trade mark infringement and passing off. There had been a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity but that appears not to have been pursued at trial.   The action came on for trial before Mr Nicholas Caddick QC on 9 and 10 June 2021.  He delivered judgment on 5 Aug 2021 ( Oatly AB and another v Glebe Farm Foods Ltd  [2021] EWHC 2189 (IPEC)).  By para [117] of his judgment, he dismissed the claims for trade mark infringement and passing off. The Claim The action was brought by the Swedish company Oatly AB and its wholly-owned British subsidiary Oatly UK Ltd.  Oatly AB marketed a milk substitute made from oats under the following marks: Mark Number Goods OATLY 009001626233 Class 29: oat-based food beverages used as a milk substitute; milk substitutes containing oats. Class 32: oat-based beverages OAT-LY!

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 bring patent, desi