NIPC Law

Author EvaK   Licence CC BY-SA 2.5   Source Wikipedia Harwich Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, Small Claims Track (HH Judge Hacon)  Evans v Trebuchet Design Ltd and another   [2020] EWHC 3037 (IPEC) (20 Oct 2020) This was an application by the defendants to an action for copyright and database right infringement and breach of contract to strike out the claim on the ground that the dispute had been compromised.  Although the case was decided in the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, it concerned important matters of principle including the rule in Henderson v Henderson    (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313, [1843] UKPC 6, the formation of contracts and costs in the small claims track. The importance of the case is signified by the fact that it was argued before the Enterprise Judge by patent counsel and a senior solicitor and trade mark attorney advocate whose public-spirit and oral and written advocacy were...

Photo Michael Reeve Creative Commons Licence Jane Lambert On 16 June 2020 the Intellectual Property Office updated its Guidance on IP crime and enforcement for business .  Most of the Guidance in three attachments: IP crime and enforcement for businesses   The UK UP Crime Group , and  Record of damages awarded in IPEC SCT cases 1 April 2018 - 31 March 2019 "IPEC SCT" stands for "Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Small Claims Track. This is a tribunal for IP claims under £10,000 other than those involving patents, registered and registered Community designs, plant varieties and semiconductor topographies.   I have discussed this jurisdiction in Small IP Claims   and the articles linked to that page. The IP crime and enforcement for businesses attachment contains two videos.  One is entitled I P Rights Infringement Overview  and the other is How do I avoid infringing IP rights at work?    There are summa...

Interior of the Royal Courts of Justice Author Aurelien Guichard Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0 Generic Source Wikipedi a Jane Lambert Just over 6 years ago the Patents County Court Small Claims Track was launched (see my article Soon there will be a Remedy if Someone steals your Idea   19 Sept 2012 NIPC Inventors Club). I was very enthusiastic about the new court and wrote a lot about it as you can see from the bibliography in Small IP Claims   31 Jan 2017 NIPC News).  The reason for my enthusiasm was that it seemed to make IP litigation affordable for thousands of start-ups and other small businesses that felt that the law provided no effective protection for their investments in branding, design, technology and creativity  because enforcement  of their rights was too expensive and too uncertain.  Before the Civil Procedure Rules came into force in 1999 claims often began with an application for inter...

Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Luckes and Others [2017] EWHC 3176 (IPEC) (7 Dec 2017)   Yesterday I discussed Judge Hacon's judgment in  The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Central Moves Ltd and Another [2017] EWHC 3175 (IPEC) (7 Dec 2017) in  Damages for Passing off - The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd. v Central Moves   7 Jan 2018 NIPC Law.   That was an appeal by the National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd. ("NGRS")  from District Judge Vary's judgment awarding £1,275 damages against a former director of a dissolved company for passing off and costs on the small claims track scale. On the same day as he heard the appeal in Central Moves,  His Honour heard  The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Luckes and Others [2017] EWHC 3176 (IPEC) (7 Dec 2017) which was another appeal by the NGRS ...

Royal Courts of Justice Author  Rafa Esteve Licence  Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International Source  Wikipedia Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (HH Judge Hacon)  The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Central Moves Ltd and Another [2017] EWHC 3175 (IPEC) (7 Dec 2017) This was an appeal by the  National Guild of Removers & Storers ("NGRS")  against an award of £1,275 damages in its favour by District Judge Vary for passing off. By dismissing that appeal, His Honour Judge Hacon seems to have settled a 7 year controversy as to what should be the correct measure of damages for what is often an inadvertent misrepresentation of continued membership of the NGRS by a removal or storage business that no longer wishes to remain a member of that guild. The NGRS At paragraph [4] of his judgment in  The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Central Moves Ltd and Another...

I always enjoy going to court in the Rolls Building. It is a great improvement on the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand or even the new Civil Justice Centres in Liverpool and Manchester. But this court is expensive to run which is why HM Government is about to increase the cost of issuing a claim worth over £10,000 to 5% of the value of the claim. As I say in  How to enforce your IP claim after court fees sky rocket   7 March 2014 NIPC Inventors' Club, some litigants will be faced with a whopping 622% fee increase. That falls well within the jurisdiction  of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court which was set up to make it easier for British SME to enforce their intellectual property rights. However, £10,000 is a daunting expense for many such businesses and it is likely to be one more reason for their not protecting their intellectual assets. However, there are things that an SME can do and I have set those out in my article: Limit your damages to £10...

Can a monkey own copyright? Clearly not. At least not in England in at any rate for two reasons. First, a photograph is an artistic work (see s.4 (1) (a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 ( "CDPA" ))  and s.1 (1) (a) makes clear that copyright subsists in an artistic work only if it is original. Now the threshold for originality is very high but it does connote independent skill and labour which goes beyond monkeying around with a smart phone button. Even if the monkeying is done by a human being. Indeed even if it is done by a photographer. The other reason is that s.1 (3) provides that "Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this Part with respect to qualification for copyright protection are met (see section 153 and the provisions referred to there)." Well those qualifications relate to nationality, residence and incorporation. Monkeys just don;t meet any of those criteria. What about the camera...

In "The End of Mediation?"  which I posted on 4 June 2012 I wrote that the IPO was thinking of discontinuing its mediation service because it had conducted only 13 mediations in the previous 5 years and only one in the last year.  That was not because the IPO service was expensive or because it was rubbish. I had used it in 2009 and was very satisfied (see "Practice: Mediation in the IPO" 2 Oct 2009). Nor did it appear that mediation work was going elsewhere. In my article I ventured some suggestions as to why mediation of intellectual property disputes seemed to be going out of style. At least in England and Wales. "I think there are a number of explanations for the low take up of the IPO's mediation service. First, commercial and litigation solicitors tell me that they are getting far less intellectual property work nowadays. Getting rid of employees and getting out of commitments such as shareholders; agreements and partnerships seem to be the m...

Following on from my article "Patents County Court - the New Small Claims Track Rules"  of 20 Sept I can now report that the Part 63 Practice Direction has been amended and that we now have a new "Guide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track." A new paragraph 32 has been added to the Part 63 Practice Direction.   It provides as follows: " Small claims 32.1 This Practice Direction shall apply to a claim allocated to the small claims track in a patents county court to the extent provided by paragraphs 32.2 and 32.3. 32.2 The following paragraphs shall apply – (1) in Section II, 16.1, 17.1, 17.2, 19.1, 20.1, 21.1 to 21.5, 22.1, 23.1, 24.1; (2) in Section IV, 26.1, 26.2; (3) in Section V, 30.1, 31.1. 32.3 No other provision in this Practice Direction shall apply."   The Guide pretty well confirms what I had anticipated in my article of 20 Sept.  However, it contains two titbits of information that were new to me.   The first is that hearings...

I discussed HM Government's proposal to introduce a new small claims track for the Patents County Court from the beginning of October 2012 in "The New Small IP Claims Jurisdiction"  (5 March 2012) and "Small IP Claims"  (Chambers website 8 May 2012). We now have the rules for the new court. Overview Rule 10 of The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2012 (S! 2012 No 2208) amends Part 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules as follows: "Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 10. In Part 63— (a) In the table of contents, after the entry for rule 63.26, insert— 'Allocation to the small claims track ........... Rule 63.27 Extent to which rules in this Part apply to small claims ........... Rule 63.28;' (b) in rule 63.1 (3), for 'Claims', substitute 'Save as provided in rule 63.27, claims'; and (c) after rule 63.26 , insert— 'Allocation to the small claims track 63.27.—(1) A claim started in or transferred to a p...