NIPC Law

After disappointments with Scarlet  and Netlog , the withdrawal of SOPA and PIPA and Her Majesty's Government's acceptance of the Hargreaves Report , Big Copyright had something to cheer about.  In  Dramatico Entertainment Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch) (20 Feb 2012) Mr. Justice Arnold concluded that both users and operators of The Pirate Bay ( "TPB" ) infringe the copyrights of the claimant record companies in the UK. TPB weren't there, of course.   As the judge noted at paragraph [12] of his judgment, one of the founders of TPB was believed to be in Cambodia but the others have scattered to the four winds. All attempts to serve them with Swedish proceedings have come to nought. Not surprising as they have all been convicted of offences there. Not only were TPB missing from Dramatico but so too were the internet service providers ("ISPs") against whom orders under s.97A of the Copyright, Designs and P...

Netlog  is a social network based in Gand in Belgium. According to the "About Netlog" page on its website it is available to 95 million users throughout Europe in 40 languages. It claims to be "page view market leader" (whatever that may mean) in  Belgium, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Romania and Turkey and number 2 in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal. I am ashamed to say until I read the decision of the Court of Justice of European Union in C-360/10,  Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) v Netlog NV  [2012] EUECJ C-360/10 I had never heard of this important continental institution but, hey, I'm South British so what do I know. Apparently "On Netlog, you can create your own web page with a blog, pictures, videos, events, playlists and much more to share with your friends. It is thus the ultimate tool to connect and communicate with your social network. Massive Media NV has developed a unique localization ...

"So what is intellectual property ?" That is a question that I have been asked many times. By accountants and bank managers, clerks of factory chambers, instructing solicitors and even by fellow members of the Bar. Well now the Court of Appeal has provided an answer of sorts.   In  Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another [2012] EWCA Civ 48 (1 Feb 2012) the question was whether mobile telephone voice mail messages were "intellectual property" for the purpose of s.72 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Court of Appeal held that they were. The question arose in the context of the privilege against self-incrimination. Unlike the United States which safeguards this privilege by the Fifth Amendment of its Constitution, it subsists at common law (see Blunt v Park Lane Hotel Ltd [1942] 2 KB 253) and is reinforced by s.14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. But there are loads of exceptions to this rule as the Master of the Rolls noted at paragraph [16] of his ...

Specsavers  (Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd., Specsavers BV, Specsavers Optical Group Ltd and Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd) are a group of companies which offer glasses, contact lenses and the like at competitive prices. Specsavers' Trade Marks Specsavers have registered the following Community trade marks: (1) 1321298 and 3418928 The word mark SPECSAVERS ( "the word mark" ); (2) 449256 and 1321348 ( "the shaded logo mark" ); (3) 5608385 ( "the unshaded logo mark" ); and (4) 1358589 ( "the wordless logo mark" ) The Claim Specsavers brought an action for trade mark infringement and passing off against the supermarket chain ASDA  (Asda Stores Ltd.) for the use of the following marketing materials: (1) the ASDA Opticians' logo as used in posters: (2) the following bill board: and (3) this leaflet: ASDA's Counterclaims ...

This was a decision by Mrs Recorder Michaels who sits as an appointed person in appeals from hearing officers in the Trade Marks Registry under s.77 of the Trade Marks Act 1977.  She is therefore used to oppositions under s.5 and applications for invalidity under s.47 (2) of that Act where there will have been no oral evidence and in many cases no hearing.   You will find the transcript of her judgment at Ghias v Ikram and Others [2012] EWPCCC 3. The Registered Marks The claimant had registered the following British trade marks: 2,326,754   for a wide range of foods and beverages in classes 29, 30 and 32 and various services in class 43 including "Restaurant, bar and catering services." with effect from 15 March 2003. 2,376,629 for the same range of goods and services with effect from 26 Oct 2004. In her judgment, the recorder referred to 2,326,754 as "the logo" and 2,376,629 as "the device". As both marks are obviou...

This is the second appeal in litigation that has come before Mr. Justice Floyd and the Court of Appeal on two occasions (see  MMI Research Ltd v CellXion Ltd and Others [2009] Info TLR 35, [2009] EWHC 418 (Pat) (11 March 2009) and MMI Research Ltd v CellXion Ltd and Others [2011] EWHC 426 (Pat) (7 March 2011). At the first trial the judge held that the patent in suit was valid and that it had been infringed. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis of new evidence. Lords Justices Jacob and Kitchin allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. At the second trial the judge considered the new evidence but held that it made no difference to his decision. The Invention The invention was a device that facilitates the detection of mobile phone numbers. It is used by police forces and security services to monitor the movements of suspected wrongdoers. It works by fooling the suspect's mobile into releasing a unique identifier known as an "IMSI". ...

In 32Red Plc v WHG (International) Ltd and Others [2012] EWCA Civ 19 (24 Jan 2012) the Court of Appeal allowed a cross appeal by the claimant, 32Red Ltd. ("Red") against Mr. Justice Henderson's finding at first instance [2011] EWHC 62 (Ch) (21 Jan 2011) [2011] ETMR 21that Red's number mark had not been infringed but dismissed the appeal by the defendants, the William Hill group of companies ("WHG"), against his finding that all of Red's marks were valid and all but one of them had been infringed. The facts of this case are complex but I set out the background and summarized the legal issues in my post Trade Marks: 32Red v WHG of 23 Jan 2011. The Grounds of Appeal Lord Justice Etherton described WHG's attack on the trial judge's judgment as "a full-scale, wide-ranging attack on the Judge's analysis and conclusions on virtually every aspect of his judgment" alleging not just errors of principle but also failure by the judge to a...

A few years ago it became possible for photo libraries to sniff the Internet for unlicensed copies of their photographs. When they found one they demanded pretty steep damages for copyright infringement. Often the owners of the websites were decent people who had acted in the sincere belief that they were entitled to use the snaps. Frequent questions at my IP clinics were: "Have they got a case?" and "Do we really owe them that much." Judge Birss QC's documents only decision in  Hoffman v Drug Abuse Resistance Education (UK) Ltd [2012]  EWPCC 2 (19 Jan 2012) answers both those questions.. Why the Case was Conducted in Writing The reason why this was a documents only decision is  that the defendant went into liquidation before the acton came on for trial. Even though the liquidator advised him that no creditor was likely to get a dividend, the claimant asked for judgment.  Rather than put the parties to further expense, the judge ordered amended particula...