Search results
10 results ordered by
Accessory liability: when will directors be held liable for IP infringements committed by their companies – and what is counted as "profits"?
The Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Ahmed & Anor [2024] UKSC 17, has allowed an appeal by two company directors who were found liable as accessories to trade mark infringement by the company in which they were directors. The decision provides helpful clarification on the required elements for accessory liability in the context of IP right infringement claims and confirms the sums to be included in an account of profits if liability is established (spoiler alert: a director's salary is not considered to be "profit").
Read moreOnline platforms should Swatch out: Samsung found liable for infringing third-party content available on the Samsung Galaxy App store
The Court of Appeal in Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics [2023] EWCA Civ 1478 has dismissed Samsung's appeal and upheld a first instance decision which found it liable for trade mark infringement in relation to third-party watch faces available on the Samsung Galaxy App store. This judgment provides guidance on what constitutes "use" of a sign by an online app store and the applicability of the e-Commerce Directive hosting defence.
Read moreFast-growing IP and tech practice at RPC welcomes Caroline Tuck as Partner
International law firm RPC is pleased to announce the appointment of Caroline Tuck as a Partner in its Intellectual Property and Technology (IP & Tech) team. Caroline Tuck joins RPC from Deloitte, where she was a Director in the Disputes team.
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 moreReproduction of infringing content online: who's liable?
Keyword advertising, search engine optimisation and liability for infringement via online marketplaces: In recent years, there has been a plethora of cases concerning the various ways that trade marks may be infringed, through use on the internet.
Read moreAll change! No extension means major changes for IP rights holders from 1 January 2021
Under Article 132 of the Withdrawal Agreement, 30 June 2020 was the last day that the UK could have requested an extension to the Brexit transition period. The COVID-19 outbreak prompted many to speculate that a request would be made but the deadline passed, without event.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here