Pop star Rihanna wins image battle – BBC News
‘Singer Rihanna has won a legal battle with high street store Topshop over a T-shirt bearing her image.’
BBC News, 22nd January 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: intellectual property
A landmark decision for brand owners: Court rules ISP blocking orders extend to trademark rights – RPC IP Hub
‘The High Court has recently granted Richemont a blocking order requiring the five largest ISPs in the UK to prevent access to various third party websites from advertising and selling goods which infringe Richemont’s trade mark rights. This was the first time that such a blocking order had been sought against ISPs on the basis of trade mark infringement anywhere in the EU (other than, perhaps, in the Danish case of Home v Telenor).’
Full story
RPC IP Hub, 8th January 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
Patents: Court of Appeal allows the appeal in Jarden – NIPC Law
‘In Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA and Another [2014] EWHC 445 (Pat) (28 Feb 2014) Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd (“Jarden”) sued SEB SA (“SEB”) for the revocation of its European patent number 2.085,003 (“the patent”) for deep fryer with automatic fat coating. SEB counterclaimed for infringement of the patent by importing and selling the Breville Halo Health fryer. The action came on for trial before Mr Justice Arnold who found that 3 of the claims of the patent were invalid but 3 others were valid and had been infringed. Jarden appealed against the judge’s construction of the patent and his finding of infringement. The appeal was heard by Lord Justices Vos and Burnett and Sir Timothy Lloyd in Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 1629 (17 Dec 2014).’
NIPC Law, 1st January 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
New UK IP laws might restrict unregistered design rights – OUT-LAW.com
‘UK intellectual property laws which came into force earlier this year might serve to diminish the rights designers have in unregistered designs, according to a judge at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London.’
OUT-LAW.com, 17th December 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
What is the definition of “design” in s.213 (2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 following the deletion of “any aspect of” from the sub-section – NIPC Law
‘In DKH Retail Ltd v H. Young (Operations) Ltd the claimant, which claimed design rights and unregistered Community design in relation to the front portion and hood of a range of gilets sold under the product name Academy under the Superdry brand sued the defendant for importing and selling a range of Glaisdale gilets under the Animal brand. The defendant raised the usual defences on subsistence, ownership and infringement.’
NIPC Law, 13th December 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Is this a copy? John Kaldor Fabricmaker UK Ltd v Lee Ann Fashions Ltd – NIPC Law
‘In John Kaldor Fabricmaker UK Ltd v Lee Ann Fashions Ltd. [2014] EWHC 3779 (IPEC) (21 Nov 2014) Judge Hacon had to decide whether the fabric used to make the dress in the bottom photo was a copy of the fabric in the top one.’
NIPC Law, 11th December 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Vestergaard – creating another buzz – RPC IP Hub
‘This long-running case has now reached a finale – a High Court decision on the assessment of damages, handed down in October 2014.’
RPC IP Hub, 4th December 2014
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
Software Patents – Lantana v The Comptroller – NIPC Law
‘Lantana Ltd. (“Lantana”) is a California company that offers communication cable services, telephone systems and services and computer and data network services mainly to customers in Southern California. One of the company’s employees invented a “method, systems, and computer program products for retrieving a file of machine readable data” for which Lantana applied for patents in the USA and around the world under the Patent Co-operation Treaty.’
NIPC Law, 17th November 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Two men jailed over Dancing Jesus site music piracy – BBC News
‘Two men have been jailed for illegally distributing music through an online music forum.’
BBC News, 10th November 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
IPO explains how government will resolve complaints about rights holder technical restrictions on lawful copying – OUT-LAW.com
‘Universities, research bodies and other organisations that want to benefit from “an eligible copyright exception” but are prevented from doing so because the works they wish to copy are subject to technological protection measures (TPMs) can now raise a complaint with the UK government.’
Full story
OUT-LAW.com, 5th November 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Inquiries as to Damages in the Patents County Court: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd – NIPC Law
‘I last discussed this litigation in Success Fees and ATE Premiums in the Patents County Court: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd 4 May 2013. I set out the basic facts in my case note:
“This was an action for infringement of a performer’s rights which Judge Birss QC (as he then was) decided in Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd and Another [2013] EWPCC 7 (13 Feb 2013)……. She had not been entirely successful and the costs of an unsuccessful copyright claim and half the costs of an application were awarded against her but she had succeeded overall.”‘
NIPC Law, 5th November 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Website blocking orders against ISPs – Cartier and 1967 – Technology Law Update
‘Two recent UK cases have underlined the vulnerability of internet service providers to allegations of IP infringement. ISPs can no longer says that they merely provide the roadways along which traffic, both good and bad, can pass. They are now being expected to police those roads and impede the progress of wrongdoers.’
Technology Law Update, 5th November 2014
Source: www.technology-law-update.co.uk
Orphan Works Licensing – NIPC Law
‘One of the consequences of extending the term of copyright in many types of copyright has been a massive increase in the number of works in which copyright subsists whose owners cannot be identified or found. Such works are known as “orphan works” and HM government claims that there are some 91 million of them in the UK alone. Because their owners cannot be traced orphan works cannot lawfully be reproduced even for preservation. Consequently, works recorded on such media as celluloid film and magnetic tape may be lost for ever. Much of that work is culturally important and some of it is of considerable scientific interest such as patient records in studies of malaria. In Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth Professor Hargreaves described the problem of orphan works as “the starkest failure of the copyright framework to adapt.”‘
NIPC Law, 3rd November 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
IPO launches new ‘orphan works’ licensing system – OUT-LAW.com
‘Businesses wishing to make use of copyrighted works that have no known rights holder can now obtain a licence allowing them to use the material without infringing UK copyright laws under a new licensing system launched by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).’
OUT-LAW.com, 31st October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Intellectual Property Act 2014: The New Law on Opinions – NIPC Law
‘As I indicated in How the Intellectual Property Act 2014 changes British Patent Law JD Supra 21 June 2014 s.16 of the Intellectual Property Act 2014 amends s.74A and s.74B of the Patents Act 1977 and inserts three new subsections into s.73. The upshot as explained in paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of the IPO’s guide Expansion of the Patent Opinions Service: business guidance is that the range of questions upon which an examiner’s opinion can be obtained has been expanded and the Comptroller now has power to revoke patents which are found to be invalid.’
NIPC Law, 29th October 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Flos putting us all through the Mill – NIPC Law
‘In 1962 Achille and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni designed a floor lamp with a marble base and a curved lead to a bowl shaped reflector. Those lamps, known as the Arco lamp and you can see a picture of one of those lamps in Achille Castiglioni’s studio in Quick History: The Arco Lamp in Apartment Therapy. Original Arco lamps retail for £1,373 but it is possible to buy a reproduction for a fraction of that price as the Prime Minister’s wife did recently (see “Samantha Cameron counts the cost of her repro lamp” 3 Oct 2011 The Guardian).’
NIPC Law, 17th October 2014
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Courts should not be given free rein to create new defences against trade mark infringement – OUT-LAW.com
‘Proposals by academics to allow new defences against trade mark infringement to be created in the future should be resisted, a trade mark law specialist has warned.’
OUT-LAW.com, 6th October 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
Academy loses High Court passing off action brought against private college – Local Government Lawyer
‘An academy school has lost an action for passing-off taken against a nearby private college.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd October 2014
Source: www.localgovernment lawyer.co.uk
UK legalises music, film and e-book back-ups – BBC News
‘A law has come into effect that permits UK citizens to make copies of CDs, MP3s, DVDs, Blu-rays and e-books. Consumers are allowed to keep the duplicates on local storage or in the cloud. While it is legal to make back-ups for personal use, it remains an offence to share the data with friends or family.’
BBC News, 1st October 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Deckmyn and another v Vandersteen and others – WLR Daily
Deckmyn and another v Vandersteen and others (Case C-201/13; ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132; [2014] WLR (D) 385
‘The concept of “parody” within the meaning of article 5(3)(k) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC was an autonomous concept of EU law and its essential characteristics were to evoke an existing work, while being noticeably different from it, and secondly, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery. The concept was not subject to the conditions that the parody should display an original character of its own, other than that of displaying noticeable differences with respect to the original parodied work; that it could reasonably be attributed to a person other than the author of the original work itself; and it should relate to the original work itself or mention the source of the parodied work. However, the application of the exception for parody, within the meaning of article 5(3)(k) of Directive had to strike a fair balance between the interests and rights of persons referred to in articles 2 and 3 of the Directive, and the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who was relying on the exception for parody and it was for the national court to determine, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, whether the application of the exception for parody preserved a fair balance.’
WLR Daily, 3rd September 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
