NIPC Law

  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 -...

Author Satoshi Nakamoto Copyright released   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justices Arnold and Warby)  Wright and others v BTC Core and others (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Civ 868 (20 July 2023) This was an appeal against Mr Justice Mellor's refusal in   Wright and others v BTC Core and others  [2023] EWHC 222 (Ch) (7 Feb 2023 to permit service outside England and Wales of claim forms alleging copyright infringement.  The claimants were Craig Steven Wright who claims to have created  Bitcoin  and two of Dr Wright's companies.  Bitcoin is a  cryptocurrency  that is attributed to one  Satoshi Nakamoto .  Dr Wright claims to be Mr Nakamoto.  The defendants are companies and individuals from around the world who are accused of copying matter known as "the Bitcoin File Format."  Dr Wright and his companies say that copyright subsists in the Bitcoin File Format and claim ownership on ...

  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...

The Countryside of Gelderland Author Janneman Licence Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported Source Wikipedia Gelderland Jane Lambert Court of Justice of the European Union ( K. Lenaerts, President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, M. Vilaras (Rapporteur), E. Regan, T. von Danwitz and C. Toader, Presidents of Chamber, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, M. Ilešič, M. Safjan, C.G. Fernlund, C. Vajda and S. Rodin, Judges)    C-310/17 ,  Levola Hengelo BV v Smilde Foods BV  ECLI:EU:C:2018:899, [2018] EUECJ C-310/17, EU:C:2018:899 (13 Nov 2018) This is one of the most remarkable cases that I have ever read.   It is important because it greatly increases the range of creations in which copyright can subsist.   I first thought it was a bit of a joke because that is how it was presented in the press (see  Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court   13 Nov 2018 BBC website)....