Infringement meaning

Consider the nature of the IP right From a lender’s standpoint, use this checklist to pinpoint key points when taking IP as security and the steps to implement it... Identify the IP right and applicable law; patents, trade marks, registered designs and copyright can be mortgaged or charged... Select security: a legal mortgage (assignment plus redemption and exclusive licence‑back) offers stronger control than a fixed charge; for charges, restrict disposals and hold an executed undated assignment in escrow (verify foreign recognition)... Confirm ownership, term, existing security, licences and third‑party interests; demand warranties and title evidence, especially for unregistered rights... Assess validity and maintenance: search prior rights, check renewals and genuine use, monitor infringement, review litigation; obtain professional opinions where needed... Value the right and routes on default (licensing or sale); add complementary assets if required... Cover associated rights and materials: unregistered marks/goodwill (only with the business), unregistered designs, database right, know‑how/confidential information, domain names, and software/source code with escrow... Register...

Introduction This checklist sits alongside the more detailed Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. It serves as a quick-look aide and concentrates on the principal, generic points that commonly surface across most forms of services agreement. It leaves out certain specialist matters addressed in Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements that tend to arise only in particular categories of services arrangements or those of greater complexity (eg acceptance testing, audit rights, TUPE, step-in rights, benchmarking and exit assistance). It sets out the customer’s and the supplier’s optimal stances for each topic, then offers a proposed middle-ground position (which is not intended to be comprehensive). For deeper analysis and explanation of each point, refer to Practice Note: Negotiation guide—services agreements. For balanced precedent contracts, which implement much of what is explored here and in the negotiation guide, see Precedents: Services agreement—one-off supply—balanced, Services agreement (ongoing supply)—balanced and Framework services agreement—single contract with call-off orders—balanced. This checklist is relevant only to business-to-business dealings in commercial practice...

More staff and freelancers are now working from home on a regular basis. Consequently, more material is produced at home and uploaded or circulated online—for instance, teachers sharing with their pupils via video platforms. Where content is made in this setting, consider who owns the IP, any use of third‑party works, and potential breaches of third‑party rights. For more detail on matters raised by this Checklist, consult the following Practice Notes: Copyright—protectable works Copyright—authorship and ownership Copyright & associated rights—overview Copyright infringement Copyright—secondary infringement Intellectual property—remedies Copyright—permitted acts and defences Joint ownership of intellectual property rights Use the third column to note observations or remarks while progressing through the Checklist. Checklist | Further information | Notes (if any) Copyright origination ☐ Pinpoint the copyright work. Copyright is unregistered and arises automatically once a qualifying work is created...

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on infringement, defences, ownership, injunctions, running disputes, and the Business and Property Courts Disclosure Scheme; cease and desist precedent; timetable checklist; key forms; IP insurance. Stage 2—letter of claim alleging copyright infringement Guidance on infringement, drafting letters of claim, unjustified threats and remedies, with precedents for standard and peer‑to‑peer infringement letters. Stage 3—commencing proceedings Notes on infringement, secondary infringement, permitted acts, remedies, criminal offences, the Business and Property Courts and the Disclosure Scheme; pleadings/initial disclosure precedents; Disclosure/IPEC flow tools; CPR claim/defence/settlement/default forms. Stage 4—case management Guidance on running disputes, costs management and the Disclosure Scheme; checklist; Chancery, Patents Court and IPEC Guides; Mitchell v NGN; core case‑management and disclosure forms. Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Notes on e‑disclosure, witness statements and the Disclosure Scheme; PD 57AC for Business and Property Courts trial statements (not...

As of 12 January 2023, the EU’s Regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market (FSR) took effect...

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Guidance on UK trade mark infringement, offences, passing off, interim injunctions, running IP disputes, privilege, dispute resolution (mediation and arbitration), and the Disclosure Scheme; plus checklists and forms (injunction, application, hearing) Stage 2—Letter before action alleging infringement Notes on infringement, passing off, unjustified threats and drafting; includes a trade mark letter of claim precedent Stage 3—commencing proceedings Procedure, defences and exceptions, IPEC flowchart, pleadings and initial disclosure precedents, and CPR/Part 36 forms Stage 4—case management Procedure and Disclosure Scheme notes, court guides (Chancery, Patents Court, IPEC and Small Claims), and case management questionnaires, Disclosure Review Document, Certificate of Compliance, budgets and directions Stage 5—disclosure and evidence Surveys and witness evidence (PD 57AC), privilege, disclosure (including electronic) and flexible trials; witness statement and Extended Disclosure precedents; affidavits, applications and certificates Stage 6—trial...

Antitrust A fresh appeal has been filed before the General Court in Case T- 19/25, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v Commission, challenging the Commission’s decision in Teva (Copaxone) (AT.40588) and requesting that the fine-imposing infringement ruling be annulled—see further, application A fresh appeal has been submitted before the General Court in Case T- 682/24, Red Bull and Others v Commission, brought against the Commission for failing to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate prolongation of an inspection—see further, application NOTE—For all...

Antitrust Commission penalises Eurofield and Unanime Sport €172,000 for incomplete information in synthetic turf sector probe The Commission stated it has imposed fines totalling about €172,000 on Eurofield SAS (Eurofield) and Unanime Sport SAS (Unanime Sport), the ultimate parent of Eurofield at the time of the infringement, for submitting an incomplete response to an information request issued as part of its ongoing inquiry into a possible infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Background On 7 June 2023, the Commission revealed that it had carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of companies active in the synthetic turf sector across several Member States. It explained that the inquiry concerns synthetic turf for sports use and noted its concerns that the inspected companies may have breached Article 101 TFEU. In the course of this investigation, the Commission also sent requests for information to the companies under investigation, including Eurofield...

Antitrust Commission fines Alchem for participating in pharmaceutical cartel The Commission delivered an infringement ruling, levying penalties of €489,000 on Alchem for taking part for over 12 years in a cartel tied to the pharmaceutical ingredient N-Butylbromide Scopolamine/Hyoscine (Case AT. 40636)...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment of 7 December 2022; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Appeal before the General Court seeking annulment of the Commission’s readopted infringement decision of 17 December 2020, which imposed a reduced fine amounting to €9.4m (AT.39563). Latest development On 7 December 2022, the General Court delivered its judgment and dismissed the appeal in full. In particular, it found that: (i) CCPL grasped the Commission’s reasoning, and the material presented by CCPL was insufficient to overturn the presumption applied by the Commission that CCPL exercised decisive influence over entities within the CCPL group; and (iii) the Commission did not err in concluding that a fine reduction can only be warranted by the aim of preventing the undertaking’s economic viability from being irreparably endangered and its assets stripped of value, so the applicant’s intention to develop operating companies of the CCPL group cannot, in principle, justify such...

This Practice Note on economic torts This note summarises, at a high level, the key differences when pursuing claims for lawful means conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, the tort of unlawful interference, and procuring a breach of contract. Practice Notes: Civil conspiracy claims (economic tort) Lawful means conspiracy (civil action) Unlawful means conspiracy (civil action) Economic tort of unlawful interference The tort of procuring a breach of contract Closely connected to procuring a breach of contract is the so‑called ‘Marex tort’, a cause of action founded on an alleged deliberate infringement by the defendant of the claimant’s rights in a judgment debt; see Practice Note: The Marex tort (interference with a judgment debt). These claims may (though need not) involve a fiduciary or agent, including company directors. For further guidance, see: Claims against directors—key considerations for dispute resolution practitioners Agency disputes Fiduciary Duties Fiduciary duties—remedies for breach Such causes...

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Cases C-806/19 P and C-883/19 P ARCHIVED —this archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment dated 24 September 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Appeal brought before the General Court challenging the Commission’s decision of 7 December 2016, which found infringements and levied fines on three banks that did not settle, due to their involvement in a cartel in the Euro interest rate derivatives (EIRD) market (Case AT.39914). Latest developments On 24 September 2019, the General Court delivered its judgment, largely confirming the Commission’s conclusion that HSBC Holdings plc took part in a single and continuous infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. Nonetheless, the General Court set aside the fine imposed on HSBC Holdings plc because the Commission provided ‘insufficient reasons’ for the methodology used to calculate that penalty...

The purpose of the claim form A claim form initiates proceedings. It sets out information relevant to the case, including: the court reference number to be used on all subsequent court documents; the parties to the proceedings; what is being claimed; particulars of the claim (including any claim for interest); and contact details for the claimant, typically the claimant’s solicitor. Guidance on the contents of a claim form in general is available in the Practice Note: Claim form—the contents. This Precedent includes suggested text for use where the claim concerns trade mark infringement and/or passing off. The form provides direction on the particular points that should be considered when completing a claim form for use in such proceedings. The attached N1 claim form is provided as an example only. We recommend that practitioners download the latest N1 claim form in PDF from the official source for submission, and use the attached version solely as an aid to completing it....

[ Postal address for internet service provider/host online platform ] [ Date ] Sent via registered post and email: [ email address for internet service provider/host online platform ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] Notice and take-down letter—trade mark infringement on [ website URL ] We act for [ name of client ] of [ client’s address ] (our Client) in connection with the enforcement of intellectual property rights. [ This correspondence relates to the website accessible at [ website URL ] (the Website). OR This correspondence concerns content available on your platform at [ website URL ] (the Website). ] The Website is directed at consumers in the UK...

The purpose of a claim form A claim form is the document that initiates proceedings. It sets out key details for the case, including: the court reference number to appear on all later court documents; the parties involved in the proceedings; the relief sought or what is being claimed; particulars of the claim (including any claim for interest); and contact details for the claimant, usually the claimant’s solicitor. The procedural requirements on how and where to commence proceedings are in CPR Part 7. General guidance on what a claim form should contain is provided in the Practice Note: Claim form—the contents. This Precedent is accompanied by material containing suggested wording for claims concerning infringement of UK registered designs, UK unregistered designs and/or supplementary unregistered designs. The Precedent also highlights the specific issues to consider when completing a claim form for these proceedings. The attached N1 claim form is illustrative only...

For information: on information and consultation duties under the Transfer of Employment (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (TUPE 2006), SI 2006/246, see Practice Note: TUPE—information and consultation on TUPE protection from dismissal, see Practice Note: TUPE—protection against dismissal on unfair dismissal claims generally, see Practice Note: Entitlement to claim unfair dismissal on reasons that make a dismissal automatically unfair (no qualifying period), see Practice Note: Automatically unfair reasons and Checklist—unfair dismissal claims requiring no minimum qualifying period A dismissal is automatically unfair under ERA 1996, s 104(1) where the reason, or main reason, is that the employee brought proceedings to enforce, or alleged an infringement of, a relevant statutory right. The two-year qualifying period does not apply where s 104(1) (read with ss 104(2)-(3)) applies (s 108(3)(g)). Relevant statutory rights appear in s 104(4), including rights conferred by TUPE 2006 (s 104(4)(e)). It does not matter whether the right exists or has in fact been breached, provided: the...