NIPC Law

Conrad Lant Author Jonas Rogowski Licence CC BY-SA 3. 0 Source Wikimedia   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Amanda Michaels)  Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC) (31 July 2025) Between 1979 and 1986, Conrad Lant  and Anthony Bray were members of a band called " Venom ".  Each of them had licensed the sale of merchandise reproducing logos and other artwork from that time without the other's consent.  Mr Lant brought proceedings against Mr Bray and his licensee, Plastic Head Music Distribution Limited, for infringement of any copyright that might have subsisted in those works.  Mr Bray and Plastic Head said that Mr Bray was entitled to copyright in some of those works and denied that copyright subsisted in others.  Mr Bray brought infringement proceedings against Mr Lant and his licensee, Razamataz.com Ltd., by way of counterclaim.  The action and counterclaim were tried by Rec...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Cour t (Mr Campbell Forsyth) WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd . [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) At the case management conference in WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC) (5 Aug 2022), Liking Ltd ("Liking") applied unsuccessfully to strike out or obtain summary judgment in, a claim against it by WaterRower (UK) Ltd.  ("WaterRower") for infringement of copyright in several of its water resistance rowing machines ("the Works"). WaterRower had alleged that the Works were "works of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of s. 4 (1) (c) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ("CDPA").  Mr David Stone, who heard the application, said: "I have found that the Claimant’s case that the WaterRower is a work of artistic craftsmanship is not 'bound to fail'. I have not reached a concluded view that the WaterRower is a work of artistic craftsmanship -...

  Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr David Stone)  Waterrowe (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [ 2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC) 5 Aug 2022 This was an application by the defendant to strike out or, alternatively, obtain summary judgment to dismiss, an action for copyright infringement.  The defendant also applied for summary judgment on its counterclaim for a declaration that the work in which copyright was alleged to subsist was not a work of artistic craftsmanship.  The claimant claimed that copyright subsisted in its water resistance rowing machine shown above as a work of artistic craftsmanship and that the defendant had infringed that copyright by making copies of the claimant's machine. The defendant admitted copying but denied the subsistence of copyright in the machine.  The action and counterclaim therefore depended on the single issue of whether the machine was or was not a work of artistic craftsmanship. The applications came on be...

Author Orphan Wiki   Licence CC BY-SA 3.0   Source Wikipedia Oswaldtwistle Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148 (IPEC) (29 Jan 2020) This was an action for infringement of copyright .  The questions that His Honour Judge Hacon had to decide were whether copyright could subsist in the wave design fabric appearing in Annex 1  to his judgment in Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd [2020] EWHC 148 and, if so, whether it had been infringed by the sale of tops made from the fabrics shown in Annexes 3 to 6. The learned judge answered both questions in the affirmative.  By so doing, he boldly departed from the decision of the House of Lords in  George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64. [1975] RPC 31 and offered his own interpretation of the words "a work of artistic craftsmanship" in s. ...

Red Deer Antlers Author: Mehmet Karatay Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 unported Source: Wikipedia Antler Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Melissa Clarke) ARB Sakes Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd. and Others   [2019] EWHC 1207 (IPEC) 9 May 2019 This was a copyright infringement claim. The claimant trades as Whyte's Bikes  and if you visit its website you should see a very distinctive antler logo. That was designed by two of its employees, Guy Farrant and Mark Morgan. The first defendant supplies an energy drink known as Rich Energy  which it promotes with a racing car.  If you visit its website right now (but probably not for much longer) you will see a not dissimilar logo. The claimant claimed that the first defendant had copied the artwork for its logo. As the first defendant had registered that logo as a trade mark, the claimant applied for it to be declared invalid on the ground that its ...