NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Intellectual Property List ( Mrs Justice Joanna Smith) Lidl Great Britain Limited and another v Tesco Stores Ltd and anothe r [2023] EWHC 1517 (Ch) (21 June 2023) In Trade Marks - Lidl v Tesco   which I posted to this blog on 1 May 2023 I discussed Mrs Justice Joanna Smith's judgment in ) Lidl Great Britain Limited and another v Tesco Stores Ltd and another [ 2023] EWHC 873 (Ch) (19 April 2023),  In that case Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Lidl Stiftung & Co KG ("Lidl") sued Tesco Stores Ltd and Tesco Plc ("Tesco") for copyright \and trade mark infringement and passing off. Tesco counterclaimed for cancellation of some of Lidl's marks,  By her judgment of 19 April 2023 the judge found for Lidl on its claim and Tesco on part of its counterclaim. Outstanding Issues The parties agreed that Tesco was entitled to an injunction to restrain trade mark infringement and passing off but Tesco objecte...

Author Sadarama   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Oma strickt Strümpfe (Grandmother knits stockings)   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Crafts Group LLC v Indeutsch International and another [2023] EWHC 1455 (IPEC) (16 June 2023) This was an application by Indeutsch International and Knitpro International for a stay of claims that had been brought against them in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court by the Crafts Group LLC to abide the outcome of cancellation proceedings in the EU Intellectual Property Office.   The application was based on art 132 (1) of   Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (codification)(Text with EEA relevance. ) OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1–99 ("the EU Trade Mark Regulation")  and CPR 3.1 (2) (f) . The Litigation On 11 Dec 2020 Crafts Group LLC issued proceedings agai...

  Jane Lamber t Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Thirwall and Lords Justices Arnold and Birss)  Advanced Bionics AG and  Another v Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate Gmb H [2023] EWCA Civ 637 (9 June 2023) This was an appeal against Mr Campbell Forsyth KC's revocation of European patent (UK)  3 138 605 entitled "MRI-safe disk magnet for implants"  ("the patent") on grounds of obviousness over  PCT application WO 03/081976 A2 entitled "Reducing Effect of magnetic and electromagnetic fields on an implants magnet and/or electronic" invented by Martin Zimmerling ("Zimmerling") (see Advanced Bionics AG and another v Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GmbH [2022] EWHC 1345 (Pat) (1 June 2022)). The defendant, Med-El Elektromedizinische Gerate GmbH, ("Med-El") applied for permission to appeal which was granted by Lord Justice Arnold.  The appeal was heard by Lady Justice Thirwall, Lord Justice Arnold, and Lord Justice Birss on 23 and 24 May 2...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Recorder Campbell KC)  KF Global Brands Ltd v Lead Wear Ltd and others  [2023] EWHC 1303 (IPEC) (2 June 2023) This was an action for unregistered design right infringement.   The claimant, KF Global Brands Ltd ("KF"), claimed design right in the design of BKS-001 cargo trousers.  A pair of those trousers appears above.  The document below was alleged to record the design. KF alleged that a Bangladeshi company called S&S Swimwear made copies of those trousers (a sample of which appears below) in Bangladesh:   It complained that S&S sold those trousers to Lead Ware Ltd (the first defendant) and Mr Kamml Hassan (the second defendant) for resale in the UK.  The defendants denied that design right subsisted in the design of the  BKS-001 trousers on the ground that the BKS-001 design had been copied from the design of the following garment known as "the Aldi trousers." They also denied that...

Author   Franzffm   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Douglas Campbell KC)  Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems and another [2023] EWHC 1136 (Pat) (12 May 2023) In these proceedings, Douglas Campbell KC was asked to consider the following questions: Can Lufthansa Technik AG ("Lufthansa") rely on additional ways of putting its case on infringement in the quantum stage which were not decided in the judgment on liability? Is Lufthansa specifically prevented from advancing certain issues (“the adjourned issues”) by reason of an order made by the trial judge after trial? The deputy judge decided the first in favour of Lufthansa and the second in favour of the defendants.  There was also an application by Lufthansa for permission to amend its statement of case to plead a point that had not been raised at trial which Mr Campbell refused.   Context Lufthansa   sued Astronics Advanc...