Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe – Speech by Lord Neuberger
Intellectual Property in the UK and Europe (PDF)
Speech by Lord Neuberger
Burrell Lecture for the Competition Law, 1st April 2014
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
Category: intellectual property
“The Only Girl in the World”: the Rihanna judgment and the protection of ‘image rights’ in English law – Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers
‘Despite the evident commercial value in the ‘image’ of modern sports personalities (indeed there are annual awards held by the BBC to identify the most noteworthy) there is no specific right to protect one’s image under English law. Relying on a cocktail of different causes of action and legal rights, English law offers some protections to a person whose ‘image’ is exploited for commercial reasons. The ingredients include: copyright and trademarks, the torts of defamation, breach of confidence, passing-off as well potentially through statutory rules ensuring data protection.’
Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 7th March 2014
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
Registered Community Designs: Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd – NIPC Law
‘In Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd [2013] EWHC 1925 (Pat) (11 July 2013) Mr Justice Arnold held that PMS International Ltd (“PMS”) had infringed registered Community design number 43427-0001 (“the RCD”), some of Magmatic Ltd (“Magmatic”)’s design rights and Magmatic’s literary copyright in its safety notice. Magmatic appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the judge fell into error in finding infringement of the RCD in that he had wrongly interpreted the RCD and improperly excluded from his consideration various aspects of the design of Magimax’s product. In Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 181 (28 Feb 2014) the Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Moses and Kitchin and Lady Justice Black) allowed the appeal.’
NIPC Law, 4th March 2014
Source: www.nicplaw.blogspot.co.uk
SPCs – unhealthy combinations of new cases – Technology Law Update
‘The Supplementary Protection Certificate. A marvellous little device for giving back to a patent owner the lost years during which it has been obtaining regulatory approval for its products in those heavily regulated areas: pharmaceuticals and plant protection products. You simply extend the patent by the number of years that the product has spent caught up in the approval process, and there you are. A gain of up to five valuable years on the end of your patent in the prime of the product’s life.’
Technology Law Update, 26th February 2014
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) ( Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C Sas intervening) – WLR Daily
‘Trade marks registered under international arrangements which had effect in a member state, as referred to in article 8(2)(a)(iii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L78, p 1), were subject to the same system as trade marks registered in a member state, as referred to in article 8(2)(a)(ii) of the Regulation. As such, where pleaded in opposition proceedings before OHIM, they were subject to the requirement in article 42(3) of the Regulation to prove the requisite prior use, the concept of use of a Community trade mark in the European Union being exclusively and exhaustively governed by EU law.’
WLR Daily, 12th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
HTC Corpn v Nokia Corpn – WLR Daily
HTC Corpn v Nokia Corpn: [2013] EWHC 3778 (Pat); [2013] WLR (D) 468
‘The criteria to be applied in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction for infringement of intellectual property rights were those of efficacy, proportionality, dissuasiveness, the avoidance of creating barriers to legitimate trade and the provision of safeguards against abuse as set out in article 3(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48/EC.’
WLR Daily, 3rd December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Judge orders UK ban of one HTC device but stays decision on ban of another – OUT-LAW.com
‘An HTC mobile device will be banned from sale in the UK after Friday afternoon unless the company wins the right to appeal against the imposition of that ban on that timescale.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th December 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Court of Appeal backs parallel UK and EPO patent proceedings but alters guidelines for future cases – OUT-LAW.com
‘A dispute over the alleged infringement of a standard-essential mobile technology European patent will be ruled on by the High Court despite there being ongoing proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO) about whether the patent is valid.’
OUT-LAW.com, 21st November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
IP in tattoos, seriously? – Technology Law Update
“There has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of years in the media about what intellectual property exists in tattoos and who owns it. It is likely that tattoos, if original artistic works, will be subject to copyright and the owner of copyright works is generally the person who created them, i.e. the tattoo artist.”
Technology Law Update, 24th October 2013
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court – not just a new name – Technology Law Update
“On 1 October 2013, the Patents County Court (‘PCC’) was renamed the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (‘IPEC’). Many practitioners just note it, in passing, as part of the effort by the Government to enhance the popularity of the PCC/IPEC – part of their agenda promoting innovation (particularly for small and medium sized enterprises), rather than a change with a significant impact on the law. However, to dismiss it as ‘just a new name’ would not be quite accurate.”
Technology Law Update, 22nd October 2013
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd – WLR Daily
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1236; [2013] WLR (D) 385
“Where a composition fell within the terms of an agreement assigning copyright to the Performing Right Society the effect of section 2(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was to vest copyright in the society as soon as the work was created, notwithstanding an agreement with those commissioning the work which purported to assign to them all rights in future works.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
CoA rules Scrabble tile trademark to be invalid – The Lawyer
“An attempt by the makers of Scrabble to protect its iconic letter tiles from imitations by claiming trademark rights has been thrown out by the Court of Appeal.”
The Lawyer, 14th October 2013
Source: www.thelawyer.com
Collective licensing bodies face £50,000 fine for non-compliant code – OUT-LAW.com
“The Government could fine collective licensing bodies up to £50,000 if they fail to implement a compliant code of practice governing their activities, according to plans outlined by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).”
OUT-LAW.com, 17th September 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Dyson sues Samsung over new vacuum’s steering mechanism – BBC News
“British manufacturer Dyson is suing Samsung over claims that the South Korean firm ‘ripped off’ one of its inventions.”
BBC News, 10th September 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Passing off – Fenty v Topshop – NIPC Law
“Mr. Justice Birss summarized the issues in Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) and Another [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 310 admirably in paragraph [1] of his judgment in that case: ‘Topshop is a well known fashion retailer. Rihanna is a famous pop star. In March 2012 Topshop started selling a t-shirt with an image of Rihanna on it. The image was a photograph taken by an independent photographer. Topshop had a licence from the photographer but no licence from Rihanna. Rihanna contends that the sale of this t-shirt without her permission infringes her rights. Topshop does not agree. This action is the result.’ ”
NIPC Law, 10th September 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
Red Bull backs down over name dispute with Redwell brewery – The Independent
“The makers of the energy drink Red Bull have announced they will not proceed with a legal challenge against the Redwell brewery using its name on its beers because it is too similar.”
The Independent, 15th August 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Red Bull pursues Redwell brewery in Norwich over name – BBC News
“A Norfolk micro brewery has been told it must change its name or face legal action, because it sounds too similar to the energy drink Red Bull.”
BBC News, 14th August 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Trade mark owner wins right to block proposed new ‘top-level’ domain – OUT-LAW.com
“A trade mark owner has won the right to stop its mark being adopted as a new generic ‘top-level’ domain (gTLD) by a rival company.”
OUT-LAW.com, 9th August 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
