NIPC Law

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...

Suds on the New River between the USA and Mexico Author Calexico New River Community Licence Copyright waived   Jane Lambert The letters "SUD" stand for supplementary unregistered design. It is a new intellectual property right which came into being at 23:00 on 31 Dec 2020 in accordance with art 57 of the agreement for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union ("the withdrawal agreement").  Introduction SUD replaces unregistered Community designs which ceased to apply to the UK at the end of the implementation period on 31 Dec 2020.  Art 57 provides: "The holder of a right in relation to an unregistered Community design which arose before the end of the transition period in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 shall in relation to that unregistered Community design ipso iure become the holder of an enforceable intellectual property right in the United Kingdom, under the law of the United Kingdom, that affords the same level of protection...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Mr David Stone)  Rothy's Inc v Giesswein Walkwaren AG  [2020] EWHC 3391 (IPEC) (16 Dec 2020) This is a case about the design of shoes which is more interesting than many of the other designs that have come before the courts recently.  It is also possibly the last time an English court will have sat as a Community design court.  Mr David Stone, who tried the case as a deputy judge of the High Court, remarked at paragraph [9] of his judgment t hat   "As things currently stand, this Court will be unable to sit as a Community Design Court after 11pm UK time on 31 December 2020, given the current end date to the transition period following the UK's departure from the European Union." The Issues The claimant company,  Rothy's Inc. ("Rothy's"), is the registered proprietor of  registered Community design number 4500932-0002 for shoes  ("the RCD").  It also claimed to be entitled to an ...

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...

Photo Wikipedia In G-Star Raw CV v Rhodi Ltd and Others [2015] EWHC 216 (Ch) (6 Feb 2015) G-Star Raw  sued Rhodi Ltd and five other companies and two directors of those companies for infringing its design rights in the designs of two ranges of jeans by importing into, and distributing in, the UK jeans that the defendants knew to be infringing articles. The defendants challenged the subsistence of design right. They denied copying and any knowledge of the alleged infringements. They counterclaimed for declarations of non-infringement and the recovery of moneys that had been paid to G-Star under a bank guarantee. The two directors also denied any personal liability for any wrongdoing by their companies The claim and counterclaim came on before Mr Richard Spearman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court. Mr Spearmam gave judgment to the claimant against the first, second, fourth and fifth corporate defendants but dismissed the claims against the third and si...

The Intellectual Property Bill has passed through the Commons and now awaits royal assent. Although much attention has focused on clause 13 of the Bill which will create a new offence of unauthorized copying of a registered or registered Community design in the course of business the legislation makes a number of useful changes to registered and unregistered designs and patents law. I have written a number of articles on the Bill for this blog: "The Intellectual Property Bill" 26 May 2013 "Correspondence with my MP on Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill"  29 May 2013, and "Clause 13 of the Intellectual Property Bill will probably go through. What next?"  20 Dec 2013. I also made written submissions on the Bill as it passed through committee in the House of Commons. My colleague, Thomas Dillon, has also analysed the Bill though he has tended to welcome clause 13 (see Thomas Dillon "UK: Intellectual Property Bill"  28...

Lord Younger, Former Minister for IP Crown Copyright, Open Government Licence In Digital Opportunity, A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth   Professor Ian Hargreaves made 10 recommendations for IP policy which I discussed at length in " IP Policy: Does Hargreaves say Anything New?"  24 June 2011. Some of those recommendations required primary legislation. Others did not.  As I said in my article, Hargreaves was not the first review of IP policy in recent years and most of the previous ones had been left to gather dust.   I suspected the same would happen to Hargreaves. Implementation of Hargreaves To my surprise and delight, Hargreaves's recommendations were accepted broadly by HM Government ( "HMG" ) (see  "The Government Response to the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth" Aug 2011).  Not only that but HMG actually started to consult on the recommendations and even to implement some of those that do not r...