NIPC Law

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert Had the United Kingdom remained a member of the European Union, it would have been obliged to transpose into the laws of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland arts 20 and 22 of  Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (Text with EEA relevance.)  OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92–125 ("the Digital Single Market Directive") by 7 June 2021, Art 20 provided a contract adjustment mechanism and art 22 a right of revocation. The justification for a contract adjustment mechanism is set out in para (78) of the Directive's recitals: "Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few opportunities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title in the event that...

Oskar Schlemmer's Bauhaus Emblem   Jane Lambert On 25 Jan 2022, the Intellectual Property Office  ("the IPO") announced a call for views on the legal protection of designs in the United Kingdom (see the IPO Press release IPO launches call for views on designs system   25 Jan 2022). This call for views follows a survey aimed at people who do not consider themselves experts on  IP but who have an interest in designs and their protection which closed on 11 Feb 2022.  The reason for the review is that the UK has left the European Union and has an opportunity to change its design law. The Current Law In Design  I wrote: "In everyday language. we talk of design as something that is functional as in the shape of the fuselage of an aircraft or the arrangement of components in a circuit or as something aesthetic such as a garment or accessory or an item of furniture. That distinction is reflected in the law that provides different regimes for the protection of...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Melissa Clarke)  Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin, Inc and another [2019] EWHC 3149 (IPEC) (20 Nov 2019) This was an action for the infringement of registered Community designs  and unregistered design right  and a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of one of those RCDs.  The action and counterclaim were tried by Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke on 23 and 24 Sept 2019. She delivered her judgment on 20 Nov 2019 the transcript of which is at  Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin, Inc. and another [2019] EWHC 3149 (IPEC) (20 Nov2019) The Parties The claimant is a Northern Irish company called Shnuggle Ltd.  ("Shnuggle") which designs, makes and markets baby products. The first defendant, Munchkin Inc.  ("Munchkin") is a much bigger American company in the same industry. The second defendant, Lindam Ltd. , ("Lindam") distributes Munchkin's products in the UK. The Registered Designs Shnuggle...

Jane Lambert High Court, Chancery Division,  Technomed Ltd and Another v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd and Another    [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch) (24 Aug 2017)  Coram David Stone  sitting as a judge of the High Court This was an action for infringement of database right and copyright in an electrocardiogram ("ECG") analysis and reporting system known as ECG Cloud. The System The claimants, Technomed Ltd. and Technomed Telemedicine Ltd. , had developed the system. The companies supply ECG equipment and use the ECG Cloud to analyse ECG readings and report the results to doctors or health screening companies such as the first defendant Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd . ( "Bluecrest" ). Mr Stone, who tried the action, described the operation of the system as follows at para [26] of his judgment: "the process of using ECG Cloud starts with a mobile ECG machine which takes a reading from a patient. The patient data are then...

I always enjoy going to court in the Rolls Building. It is a great improvement on the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand or even the new Civil Justice Centres in Liverpool and Manchester. But this court is expensive to run which is why HM Government is about to increase the cost of issuing a claim worth over £10,000 to 5% of the value of the claim. As I say in  How to enforce your IP claim after court fees sky rocket   7 March 2014 NIPC Inventors' Club, some litigants will be faced with a whopping 622% fee increase. That falls well within the jurisdiction  of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court which was set up to make it easier for British SME to enforce their intellectual property rights. However, £10,000 is a daunting expense for many such businesses and it is likely to be one more reason for their not protecting their intellectual assets. However, there are things that an SME can do and I have set those out in my article: Limit your damages to £10...

As everyone knows, copyright restricts the acts listed in s.16 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988  ( "CDPA" ) in relation to a work in which copyright subsists ( "a copyright work" ). Those acts include copying, issuing copies, renting, lending or communicating the work to the public etc. Anyone who does any of those acts without the owner's licence  infringes that copyright. He or she may be sued or in an extreme case prosecuted. Clearly, if you want to broadcast, perform or otherwise make use of a copyright work it is a good idea to get a licence. As all those lovely artists, choreographers, composers. dramatists, novelists, poets, song writers and other authors need to live it is only right that they get paid a reasonable fee for their trouble. But therein lies the rub because what may seem reasonable to you and me as consumers may not feel reasonable to an artist in his garret or, more importantly, his agent in his BMW. As I argued...