NIPC Law

Jane Lambert   Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (His Honour Judge Hacon) Luxe World Ltd v Touch of Vogue Ltd and another [2026] EWHC 148 (IPEC) (30 Jan 2026) S.26C (1) of the Registered Designs Act 1949 provides that proceedings in respect of an actionable threat may be brought against the person who made the threat for— (a) a declaration that the threat is unjustified; (b) an injunction against the continuance of the threat; (c) damages in respect of any loss sustained by the aggrieved person by reason of the threat. An "actionable threat" in this context means a threat to sue for infringing a registered design. S.26A (1) states that a threat of infringement proceedings made by any person is actionable by any person aggrieved by such a threat, subject to the provisions of subsections 26A (2) to (5). S.26 (1) adds that a communication contains a “threat of infringement proceedings” if a reasonable person in the position of a recipient would understand from the comm...

Horse's Eye Author  Waugsberg   Licence   CC BY-SA 3.0   Sourc e  Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels) E quisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower Ltd     2023] EWHC 1821 (IPEC) (21 July 2023) and  Equisafety Ltd v Battle, Hayward and Bower Ltd and another [2024] EWHC 283 (IPEC) (15 Feb 2024) I n  Practice - Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics Corporation  on 10 Nov 2023 I said that proceedings in the Chancery Division take place in two stages. First, there is a trial to determine whether the defendant is liable to the claimant, If the court finds that the defendant is liable it can order an account of profits or an inquiry as to damages. An account of profits is a determination of the profits that the defendant has gained from his or her wrongdoing followed by an order for him or her to pay those profits to the claimant. An inquiry as to damages is a determ...

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...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Nicholas Caddick QC)  Bei Yu Industrial Co v Nuby (UK) LLP   [2022] EWHC 652 (IPEC) (22 March 2022) This was an account of profits. In the Chancery Division which deals with most intellectual property claims infringement proceedings take place in two phases. There is a hearing known as a "trial" to determine whether the right has been infringed and by whom.  In the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court or IPEC that takes place some 15 months or so after the issue of the claim form. If the claimant is successful at trial, the court usually orders the defendant to stop the infringement on pain of imprisonment or other punishment for disobedience.   If the successful claimant so wishes, the court will then decide how much money the defendant should pay him or her for the past infringement. Claimants have a choice.  They can request compensation for the loss or damage they may have sustained as a r...

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 ...

By Seauton, 24 February 2019 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,  https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77004919   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Lord Justice Warby) Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 510 (Ch) (5 March 2021) On 11 Feb 2021, Mr Justice Warby (as he then was) gave judgment in the Duchess of Sussex's application for summary judgment in her claim for misuse of personal information and copyright infringement.  She was largely successful and I discussed his judgment in  Summary Judgment - Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers   12 Feb 2021. There remained the following issues which the learned lord lustice set out at para [10] of a further judgment ( HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd . [2021] EWHC 510 (Ch) (5 March 2021) after a full day's hearing on 2 March 2021: "(1) What are the remaining issues in the action, and what is the most appropriate procedural mechanism for dealing with them? (2) What re...