Search results
19 results ordered by
Look to the future: Trainees take on 2019
The trainees didn't fare too badly with their 2018 predictions. They doubted England's ability to make it past the group stages of the World Cup, but foresaw how Brexit would dominate the news agenda. They over-optimistically predicted the introduction of automated bundling, but came very close on the value of Bitcoin. Read on to see this year's predictions.
Read moreBrexit - a legal analysis: IP rights
IP rights in the UK are all influenced and moulded to a greater or lesser degree by European law.
Read moreAesthetic appeal and craftsmanship are not enough: WaterRower fails to secure copyright protection as a UK work of artistic craftsmanship
The term "artistic craftsmanship" has no statutory definition under UK copyright law – a position that has only been made more challenging by a conflict between EU and UK case law in this area. In this hotly anticipated judgment, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) sought to determine what it means to be a work of artistic craftsmanship in the context of s 4(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).
Read moreMcDonald's BIG MAC trade mark – General Court gives decision on evidence of genuine use
In a decision that, practically, provides for only a tiny loss of protection for the behemoth brand and trade mark, on 5 June 2024 the European General Court (General Court) partially revoked McDonald's BIG MAC trade mark (the EUTM) in the EU (Supermac's (Holdings) Ltd v EUIPO (Case T 58/23)).
Read moreGinfringement: Success for M&S in the Court of Appeal in registered design spat with Aldi
M&S and Aldi's gin bottle battle over design rights has reached a conclusion (for now) as the Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the IPEC's decision that Aldi's bottle infringed M&S' design.
Read moreClear as gin: M&S and Aldi take liquor bottle battle to the Court of Appeal
Intellectual property enthusiasts' favourite supermarket adversaries were back at loggerheads this week as M&S and Aldi appear before the Court of Appeal. The pair sought to thrash out a first instance decision handed down in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) regarding alleged infringement of M&S' registered design rights in a gin bottle.
Read moreThaler v Comptroller [2023] UKSC 49: the UKSC rules that AI cannot be an 'inventor'
To the surprise of no one, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has finally ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be an inventor for the purposes of UK patent law. This judgment accords with the decisions of the lower courts in the UK and the initial ruling of the UKIPO. It also reflects similar findings from most of courts around the world where the claimant, Dr Thaler, brought similar actions.
Read moreGenerative AI and intellectual property rights—the UK government's position
The IPO is to produce a code of practice by the summer that will provide guidance to support AI firms in accessing copyright protected works as an input to their models.
Read moreM&S v Aldi – lookalike claims lit up by design rights
As lookalike products rise in prominence, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court's (IPEC) recent ruling that the sale and advertisement of Aldi's 'Infusionist' range of favoured gins infringed M&S's UK registered designs protecting the light-up bottles containing its 'Snow Globe' gin range (Marks and Spencer PLC v Aldi Stores Limited [2023] EWHC 178) highlights the utility of registered design rights in circumstances where other intellectual property rights (IPR) are often less able to provide protection.
Read moreLookalikes and passing off—bottle design get-up claim (Au Vodka)
Currently there's significant activity in the lookalikes space. The Au Vodka claim (Au Vodka v NE10 Vodka [2022] EWHC 2371), which focuses on bottle design 'get-up', arrived in the courts for an interim injunction hearing in September 2022. Au Vodka's application was dismissed. The judgment shows that passing off—get-up claims based on shape can be challenging to bring, particularly at the interim stage, and prompts the question of whether it's possible to bring Cofemel and copyright into the lookalikes arena.
Read moreSky Kick Back! High Court finding of bad faith overturned by Court of Appeal in long-running Sky v Skykick saga
On 26 July 2021, the Court of Appeal (CoA) handed down its much-anticipated decision in the latest instalment of the Sky v Skykick trade mark dispute.
Read moreWilliam Grant & Sons v Lidl: where to be-gin?
On 25 May 2021, the Scottish Court of Session (SCOS) granted an interim interdict (akin to an interim injunction), which prevents Lidl from selling its own brand 'Hampstead gin' in Scottish stores, pending the outcome of the matter at trial.
Read moreCopyright: Online platform operators’ liability for users illegally uploading copyright material
C-682/18 Frank Peterson v Google LLC and others and C 683/18 Elsevier Inc. v Cyando AG EU:C:2020:586 – A-G opinion
Read moreLandmark case sees trade mark specifications cut down on grounds of bad faith.
Today, the High Court handed down judgment in Sky v SkyKick. The judgment follows the CJEU's 29 January 2020 decision, which answered various questions that the High Court had referred to it, back in June 2018.
Read moreCOVID-19 prompts changes to working arrangements for the Court of Justice of the European Union
Prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the CJEU announced, on 19 March 2020, that it will be temporarily changing its working arrangements.
Read moreThe November 2023 AI safety summit and the UK's direction of travel
The government has confirmed that the UK AI safety summit will be held at Bletchley Park on 1 and 2 November 2023.
Read moreTelecoms supply agreement excludes "loss of profit" claim under "anticipated profits" liability exclusion (EE v Virgin Mobile)
In line with a number of recent cases, in EE Limited v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Limited [2023] EWHC 1989 (TCC) the courts have shown that parties generally cannot avoid clear wording contained in exclusion clauses in order to recover losses that have been expressly excluded (in this case, loss of profits).
Read moreRolls-Royce entitled to hit the brakes in dispute over termination of a software services agreement (Topalsson v Rolls-Royce)
In Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited [2023] EWHC 1765 (TCC), the High Court has provided useful guidance on how to determine whether a software implementation timeline agreed by the parties is binding, when implementation is considered complete and in what circumstances failing to complete implementation by the contractual deadlines entitles the customer to terminate the contract.
Read moreA narrow escape – software services provider entitled to rely on single aggregate liability cap (Drax v Wipro)
When it comes to bespoke software development projects, a lot can go wrong. There's risk for the customer such as project delays, software defects, functionality issues and a lack of meeting of minds in terms of project requirements.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here