NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Cour t (Mr Campbell Forsyth) WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd . [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) At the case management conference in WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC) (5 Aug 2022), Liking Ltd ("Liking") applied unsuccessfully to strike out or obtain summary judgment in, a claim against it by WaterRower (UK) Ltd.  ("WaterRower") for infringement of copyright in several of its water resistance rowing machines ("the Works"). WaterRower had alleged that the Works were "works of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of s. 4 (1) (c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA").  Mr David Stone, who heard the application, said: "I have found that the Claimant’s case that the WaterRower is a work of artistic craftsmanship is not 'bound to fail'. I have not reached a concluded view that the WaterRower is a work of artistic craftsmanship -...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Nicholas Caddick KC)  AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC) (8 July 2024) UK Innovations Group Ltd . ("UKIG") describes itself on its website as "a progressive, dynamic, energetic, obsessive and innovative business turning the heat storage range cooker concept on its head.". It has developed an electronic control ("eControl") system which it installs in heat storage range cookers known as "Stone Cookers ". However, its eControl systems can also be fitted to AGA cookers that have been converted from fossil fuel heat sources to electricity.  UKIG has converted 26 second-hand AGA cookers to electric power with eControl systems and offered them for sale under both AGA and eControl branding as in the photos above.  AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd ("ARG")  objects to UKIG's marketing and has brought trade mark and copyright infringement pr...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr David Stone)  Waterrowe (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [ 2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC) 5 Aug 2022 This was an application by the defendant to strike out or, alternatively, obtain summary judgment to dismiss, an action for copyright infringement.  The defendant also applied for summary judgment on its counterclaim for a declaration that the work in which copyright was alleged to subsist was not a work of artistic craftsmanship.  The claimant claimed that copyright subsisted in its water resistance rowing machine shown above as a work of artistic craftsmanship and that the defendant had infringed that copyright by making copies of the claimant's machine. The defendant admitted copying but denied the subsistence of copyright in the machine.  The action and counterclaim therefore depended on the single issue of whether the machine was or was not a work of artistic craftsmanship. The applications came on be...