Common general knowledge meaning

In this issue Trade marks/passing off Copyright and related rights Patents General intellectual property News alerts, daily and weekly Fresh and revised content Key dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q and A Useful information Trade marks/passing off Supreme Court finds directors need not account for profits following trade mark infringement (Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed) In Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Lifestyle Equities’ appeal. It decided the defendant company directors, the Ahmeds, were not liable for procuring Lifestyle’s trade mark infringements, nor under a common design, because they lacked knowledge of the essential facts that made the use of the signs in question, by the company of which they were directors, wrongful. The Court further held the Ahmeds could not be ordered to account for profits made by the company and, on the facts found, had not personally gained from the infringements. Commentary is provided by...

What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers insight into how the UK Patents Court currently treats plausibility. Applying the approach articulated by Lord Sumption in Warner‑Lambert v Actavis [2018] UKSC 56, and restated by Mr Justice Meade, the touchstone is that there must be a substantive basis to consider the claimed effect credible, not mere conjecture. Absent such a reason, plausibility fails. On that test, the judge held the Patents were not plausible. Nonetheless, he accepted that, in some instances, the necessary “positive reason” might flow solely from the skilled person’s common general knowledge (CGK). He cautioned, however, that this is more likely in mechanical arts than within the life sciences, and particularly not in the context of second medical use claims—the very scenario considered by the Supreme Court in Warner‑Lambert. In any case, an example of that kind would be a long way off...

In this issue: EU fundamentals Competition and state aid Data protection and cybersecurity Financial services Energy Environment IP Life sciences Regulatory TMT International trade Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Trackers New Q&As EU fundamentals European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028 On 16 January 2025, the European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028 (Strategy) was printed in the Official Journal of the EU (OJEU). It sets out a framework to advance the digitalisation of justice across the EU and continues the Union’s drive to modernise judicial systems. The initiative furthers the EU’s sustained push to update court systems EU-wide and digitally. Marco Pasqua, junior editor of the European Association of Private International Law blog, examines the Strategy. See News Analysis: European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028. Competition and state aid Antitrust—Court of Justice clarifies jurisdiction in competition damages actions under Recast Brussels Regulation The Court of Justice delivered its...

As a broad principle, hearsay does not qualify as admissible proof in Scottish criminal proceedings (see, for instance, Introduction: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia [237]). Yet there are a number of recognised departures from that principle. The first and most straightforward exception in Scots Law permits hearsay to be led simply to demonstrate that a statement occurred (commonly termed primary hearsay). Such material, however, is not receivable as proof at trial of the truth of what was asserted (secondary hearsay). For further detail, see Introduction: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia [237]. Accordingly, parties may adduce evidence to establish that words were spoken, which may bear upon a person’s knowledge or serve to account for later conduct; nevertheless, that evidence cannot establish that the content of the utterance was true and accurate. This Practice Note addresses the other main exception to the hearsay prohibition: statements made by the accused person, which are generally always admissible notwithstanding their inherently hearsay character. Witness statements As a general position, statements given by an individual while...

Scope of this Practice Note This Practice Note centres on the approach taken by EU authorities and regulators (ie, the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Act (ESMA)) in this area. It further sets out background on what is meant by cryptoassets, along with the distinctive challenges these assets present for regulators and oversight. For information on the approach adopted by UK authorities and regulators, see Practice Note: UK regulation of cryptoassets. For additional material on how supranational bodies address these issues, see Practice Note: Supranational approach to the regulation of cryptoassets. This Practice Note should also be read alongside Practice Note: Web 3.0, digital assets and cryptoassets—essentials, which covers: What are cryptoassets? Common terms associated with cryptoassets Development of cryptoassets Characteristics of cryptoassets Considerations for businesses looking at cryptoasset technology Cryptoassets, the smart contract and ICOs Disputes involving cryptoassets Regulation of cryptoassets Cryptoassets as regulated investments What are cryptoassets? ...

ARCHIVED : This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note compiles principal appellate cases (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and, where applicable, selected judgments of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU)) that we have covered, to make it simpler for users to locate those decisions. You can navigate the material via the collapsible table of contents on the left-hand margin and/or by using the hyperlinks listed below. The cases are arranged under these headings: Key DR Developments Brexit Applicable law Rome I Jurisdiction Jurisdiction and choice of court agreements Stays and disputing the court’s jurisdiction Brussels I (EC regulation) Brussels I (recast) (EU regulation) Service Service in the jurisdiction Service...

Claim No : [ insert claim number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALESINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)[ Patents Court OR Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ] Between:[ insert name ] Claimant/Part 20 Defendantand[ insert name ] First Defendant/Part 20 Claimant[ insert name ] Second Defendant/Part 20 Claimant Grounds of invalidity Set out below are the Grounds of Invalidity for [ GB Patent OR European Patent (UK) ] [ number ] (the Patent), as identified in the Defence and Counterclaim accompanying these Grounds, and on which the Defendants/Part 20 Claimants intend to rely. The purported invention, in all claims of the Patent, is not patentable because its subject matter lacked novelty in view of the state of the art at the Patent’s priority date [ and common general knowledge ]...

Step 1: Identify our clients Question: Who are our current clients (specific and general)? Response: Anyone seeking to purchase, sell or let a home. Question: Who could be our future clients? (May be specific or a type of client, e.g. more corporate clients, more family law clients) Response: We aim to expand into commercial property. Question: Are there markets we have yet to tap? Response: Holiday lets and buy-to-let rentals are becoming increasingly common in our local area. Question: Is our client base likely to change? Response: The property market is starting to pick up, and we are seeing more second-home owners locally. Question: [ Insert other ] Response: [ Insert response ] Step 2: Gather client information/feedback Question: What do we already understand about our clients’ needs? Response: Clients expect their transaction handled swiftly and at a reasonable price. They like frequent updates, even when there is no progress. They...