NIPC Law

John Speed's Map of Lancashire (1610) Author:  John Speed, Copyright:  Public Domain, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke)  Charles and Ivy Ltd and another v Chelsea Supplies Ltd [2026] EWHC 2556 (IPEC) (9 Oct 2026) This was an inquiry as to damages for copyright infringement conducted by Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke. The claimants were Charles and Ivy Top Ltd. ("CIT") and its wholly owned subsidiary, Charles and Ivy Ltd. ("CI").  The copyright works were 20 images of fencing elements and finishes, copies of which occupy the left-hand column of Annex A to the transcript of Judge Melissa Clarke's judgment in  Charles and Ivy Ltd and another v Chelsea Supplies Ltd   [2026] EWHC 2556 (IPEC) (9 Oct 2026). Those images had been made by Greg Robinson, a British citizen living in the UK.  He assigned the copyrights subsisting in those works to CIT on 7 July 2025....

Conrad Lant Author Jonas Rogowski Licence CC BY-SA 3. 0 Source Wikimedia   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC) (31 July 2025) Between 1979 and 1986, Conrad Lant  and Anthony Bray were members of a band called " Venom ".  Each of them had licensed the sale of merchandise reproducing logos and other artwork from that time without the other's consent.  Mr Lant brought proceedings against Mr Bray and his licensee, Plastic Head Music Distribution Limited, for infringement of any copyright that might have subsisted in those works.  Mr Bray and Plastic Head said that Mr Bray was entitled to copyright in some of those works and denied that copyright subsisted in others.  Mr Bray brought infringement proceedings against Mr Lant and his licensee, Razamataz.com Ltd., by way of counterclaim.  The action and counterclaim were tried by Rec...

  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 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...

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. ...