NIPC Law

BBC TV Centre Author Panhard Licence CC BY-SA 3.0 Source Wikipedia BBC     Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Master Teverson)    Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd and others [2020] EWHC 2799 (Ch) (19 Oct 2020) This was an application by the defendants to an action for copyright infringement and passing off for the transfer of the claim to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC").   The claimant, Shazam Productions Ltd. ("Shazam") was a company established by the late John Sullivan  who created the TV sit come Only Fools and Horses   to manage his intellectual property rights. The defendants offered an  "interactive theatrical dining experience called Only Fools The (cushty) Dining Experience ("the Show")." According to Master Teverson who heard the application, "the Show is a part-scripted, part- improvised dramatic performance which takes place while the audience eats a three-course dinner and inv...

Photo Michael Maggs   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Jane Lambert I ntellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Pliteq Inc and another v iKoustic Ltd and anothe r [2020] EWHC 2564 (IPEC) (2 Ocr 2020) This was a dispute between Pliteq Inc , a manufacturer of acoustic damping and sound control products and its UK subsidiary and iKoustic Ltd  ("iKoustiic"), their former distributor When the two sides fell out iKoustic held a large quantity of Pliteq stock which the claimants refused to take back. iKoustic used Pliteq's marks to sell off that stock while at the same time selling their own range of competing products,  Pliteq complained that the use of their marks in relation to iKoustic products amounted to trade mark infringement and passing off,  The defendants denied that their use of the claimants' marks amounted to infringement but if it did they could rely on the exhaustion defence set out in s.12 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and art 15 (...

Author Ashte   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0  Source  Wikipedia "Trilfinders " Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Judge Hacon)   Trailfinders Ltd v Travel Counsellors Ltd  and other s [2020] EWHC 591 (IPEC) (12 March 2020) This is the first case that I have seen in which the Trade Secrets Directive ( Directive (EU) 2016/943 of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (OJ 15.6.2016 L 157/1)  has been considered by an English judge. I have written quite a lot about that Directive and I have always taken the view that it creates new rights and obligations while leaving the law of confidence more or less intact (see Jane Lambert The Trade Secrets Directive 7 July 2020 NIPC Law). In   Trailfinders Ltd v Travel Counsellors Ltd and others  [2020] EWHC 591 His Honour Judge Hacon quoted in full the first 7 articles of t...

Author Orphan Wiki   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Oswaldtwistle Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148 (IPEC) (29 Jan 2020) This was an action for infringement of copyright .  The questions that His Honour Judge Hacon had to decide were whether copyright could subsist in the wave design fabric appearing in Annex 1  to his judgment in Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148 and, if so, whether it had been infringed by the sale of tops made from the fabrics shown in Annexes 3 to 6. The learned judge answered both questions in the affirmative.  By so doing, he boldly departed from the decision of the House of Lords in  George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64. [1975] RPC 31 and offered his own interpretation of the words "a work of artistic craftsmanship" in s. ...

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Floyd, Henderson and Jackson) Martin and another v Kogan   [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 Readers can judge from the video that  Florence Foster Jenkins  was about as good at singing as William McGonagall was at poetry  or, indeed, I am at ballet . In 2016 a film was made about her life which grossed receipts of US$44.3 million.  The screenplay was credited to one Nicholas Martin but his partner, Julia Kogan, claimed to be a joint author.  Mr Martin brought proceedings against Ms Kogan for a declaration that he was sole author of the work and owner of the copyright  subsisting in it. She counterclaimed for a declaration that she was a joint author and copyright owner and sought damages for infringement of her copyright.  The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon in Martin and another Kogan and others [2017] EWHC 2927 (IPEC) (22 Nov 2017),  His...

Interior of the Royal Courts of Justice Author Aurelien Guichard Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0 Generic Source Wikipedi a Jane Lambert Just over 6 years ago the Patents County Court Small Claims Track was launched (see my article Soon there will be a Remedy if Someone steals your Idea   19 Sept 2012 NIPC Inventors Club). I was very enthusiastic about the new court and wrote a lot about it as you can see from the bibliography in Small IP Claims   31 Jan 2017 NIPC News).  The reason for my enthusiasm was that it seemed to make IP litigation affordable for thousands of start-ups and other small businesses that felt that the law provided no effective protection for their investments in branding, design, technology and creativity  because enforcement  of their rights was too expensive and too uncertain.  Before the Civil Procedure Rules came into force in 1999 claims often began with an application for inter...

The Rolls Building Author Basher Eyre Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0 generic Source Wikipedia Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Master Clark) Massimo Osti SRL v Global Design and Innovation Ltd and another [2018] EWHC 2263 (Ch) (30 Aug 2018) This was an application  by the claimant to set aside an order made by the court on its own initiative under CPR 3.3 to transfer a claim for an EU wide injunction, unpaid royalties and other relief for EU trade mark infringement and breach of contract and the defendants' counterclaim for a declaration that the mark is invalid from the Chancery Division to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") . The Significance of the Application The Chancery Division is one of three Divisions of the High Court of Justice established by s.5 (1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.  S.61 (1)  and para 1 (i) of Sched. 1 of that Act assign patents, trade marks, registered designs, copyrig...