Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
PMJC SAS v [ W] [ X], [ M] [ X], [ X] Créative SAS Case C‑168/24 What are the practical implications of this case? If the Court of Justice adopts the Advocate General’s view, the principal practical effects for proprietors of patronymic trade marks and for designers are set out below: Use of patronymic trade marks Holders of patronymic trade marks matching an initial fashion designer’s name should proceed with care, ensuring their use does not mislead consumers into thinking the goods are linked to that original designer when they are not. For example: a campaign featuring the original designer could cause consumers to wrongly believe the designer took charge of the artistic supervision of the goods. This may amount to conduct justifying revocation for misleading use of the trade marks in issue marketing materials and communications should avoid statements implying the goods were...
Design law can protect multiple components as a single The Court of Appeal has set aside a High Court decision that had revoked Safestand’s designs after an infringement row with Weston Homes, holding that images of the low-level scaffolding units could illustrate parts in varying colours or dimensions without requiring the assembly of multiple products. Justice Richard Arnold, writing for a three-judge panel, explained that showing frames and handrails in different colours indicates that both colours form part of the product, and does not suggest separate embodiments. The High Court had previously found that Weston Homes infringed a Safestand patent, yet dismissed the design infringement claims and in March 2025 ultimately revoked Safestand’s rights on the basis that the depictions lacked clarity and failed to present a single defined product......
In this issue: Patents Trade marks/passing off Copyright & associated rights Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents Astra Zeneca keeps generics off shelves ahead of appeal Law360, London: On 31 March 2025, in Astrazeneca AB v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals [2025] EWHC 748 ( Pat), Astra Zeneca’s counsel persuaded the Court of Appeal ( Co A) to revisit a ruling that would have let Glenmark introduce its generic version of a billion-dollar diabetes medicine, under terms allowing shipment of stock already loaded onto lorries so long as retail sales did not proceed in the interim. See: Astra Zeneca keeps generics off shelves ahead of appeal. UPC likely to lure patent holders with UK IP in play Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court ( UPC) has now reaffirmed its authority to hear cases...
Justice Richard Arnold granted Astra Zeneca leave to appeal and permitted lorries carrying about 175,000 packs of Glenmark’s generics to move on to wholesalers, provided they did not reach pharmacy shelves while the case continued at any point during those interim proceedings. In this way, Glenmark could keep its first-to-market advantage, while causing only minimal detriment to Astra Zeneca should the Court of Appeal later be persuaded to issue an injunction against supply. The judge said this approach maintained the status quo with the least possible prejudice to Glenmark’s position overall. The hearing was arranged at short notice, just days after the High Court refused Astra Zeneca an injunction to block the diabetes generic from sale while the court considered whether the patents supporting the branded medicine were valid in law. Glenmark, Generics ( UK) Ltd and Teva...
On 21 March 2025, the Paris Local Division rejected Mul- T- Lock France’s argument that permitting competitor IMC Créations to bring infringement actions for the UK, Spanish and Swiss designations of a European patent would create a ‘significant imbalance’ between the sides. Through this ruling, the court affirmed its long-arm jurisdiction to address infringement occurring beyond the EU where the defendant is established within the EU, enabling rights-holders to advance multi-jurisdictional infringement proceedings via a single claim. Bardehle Pagenberg LLP partner Tilman Müller- Stoy observed that this sets up a structurally asymmetric scenario, effectively compelling the alleged infringer to defend on numerous fronts with several national revocation actions. The decision concludes a run of 2025 judgments on European courts’ reach in patent matters. In January 2025, the UPC first signalled it could hear accusations that German subsidiaries of Kodak infringed patents in the UK, since the...
Rukhadze v Recovery Partners GP Ltd [2025] UKSC 10 What are the practical implications? The majority concluded that the liability to account for unauthorised gains is strict in nature and does not turn on whether the principal might have earned an equivalent profit, or would have agreed to the fiduciary retaining some or all of it if permission had been sought. It is, in short, enough that there is a sufficient connection between the fiduciary obligation and the gain. What was the background? The facts are complex but can be outlined very briefly so as to frame the issue now before the Supreme Court. The dispute followed the death of the Georgian billionaire Patarkatsishvili (known as ‘ Badri’, a name familiar to aficionados of oligarch litigation). The claimants (and associated parties) agreed with his family that they would deliver services to recover his assets...
Merck Serono v Comptroller- General of Patents [2025] EWCA Civ 45 The dispute centred on Merck’s bid for an SPC covering cladribine for treating multiple sclerosis, relying on its 2017 marketing authorisation for Mavenclad®. The request was found not to satisfy Article 3(d) of Regulation ( EC) 469/2009 (the EU SPC Regulation) owing to the presence of an earlier marketing authorisation for a medicinal product with cladribine as the active ingredient. In reality, two prior authorisations existed: one for Leustat®, granted in 1995, and another for Letak®, granted in 2004. Each authorisation concerned a medicinal product comprising cladribine as an active ingredient for the therapy of hairy cell leukaemia. Those earlier approvals long pre-dated Mavenclad®, both designating cladribine as the active substance and addressing hairy cell leukaemia, rather than multiple sclerosis, thereby preventing full compliance with Article 3(d). Merck’s SPC...
US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla found that Lipa did not infringe Larball Publishing Co and Sandy Linzer Productions' ( SLP) 1979 track ' Wiggle and Giggle All Night', because the Second Circuit clarified in 2024, in litigation over Ed Sheeran's hit ' Thinking Out Loud', that pairing two unprotectable elements lacks the requisite originality to amount to a copyrightable work under appellate precedent recently and clearly reaffirmed in that decision concerning popular music authorship and scope of protection. Awarding Lipa summary judgment, Judge Failla concluded that Larball and SLP failed to 'create a triable issue regarding substantial similarity' between Lipa's recording and any protectable components of theirs. She also rejected what she described as the music publishers' 'last-ditch attempt to rescue their case', noting that their 'newly minted merits theory' was advanced too late and, in any event, would not have altered the...
Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 5 What are the practical implications of this case? The main practical implications for trade mark owners are the following: seek protection for the mark you plan to use, and for packaging, aim to register the whole packaging as a trade mark rather than only the word mark. Thatchers’ success here was largely because it held a trade mark registration for the packaging, which included the lemon elements. If the dispute had been assessed solely by comparing the THATCHERS and TAURUS word marks, Thatchers would most likely not have succeeded linked to this is the point that infringement claims can be successfully advanced under TMA 1994, s 10(3), although it remains uncertain whether other cases will adopt the same reasoning as this one......
In this issue: Patents Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents UPC reiterates right to rule on infringement of UK patents Law360, London: The Unified Patent Court ( UPC) has reinforced its jurisdiction over claims involving UK patents, relying on a recent ruling that EU courts may evaluate the validity and infringement of patents from outside the EU. See: UPC reiterates right to rule on infringement of UK patents. FRAND trial to be fast-tracked so as to prevent ‘highly damaging’ injunctions ( Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp) This was a judicial ruling made by Justice Mellor in the Patents Court of the High Court on an application by Samsung to obtain an expedited listing of a fair,...
Protection from Unfair Trading Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ( Commencement No 2) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/272, reg 2, most of DMCCA 2024, Pt 4, Ch 1 will take effect on 6 April 2025. The provisions not commencing concern consumers’ private law rights of redress ( DMCCA 2024, ss 232, 234 and 235). Chapter 1, ‘ Protection from Unfair Trading’, supersedes the Consumer Protection from Unfair Commercial Practices Regulations 2008 ( CPUTR 2008), SI 2008/1277, as outlined in DMCCA 2024, s 224. In contrast to much of the remainder of the Act, Pt 4, Ch 1 is not designed to be a wholesale reform of existing statutory protections; instead, it largely preserves the prior legal effect, with minor modifications (see Explanatory Note to DMCCA 2024, para 1330). Many updates are definitional refinements that recognise the case law developed since CPUTR 2008 came into...
The UPC Court of First Instance on 21 March 2025 dismissed Mul- T- Lock’s assertion that it lacked authority to assess alleged infringement of IMC Creations’ lock‑mechanism patent in the UK, Spain and Switzerland—jurisdictions outside the unitary patent regime. Mul‑ T‑ Lock’s objection—that the non‑ UPC status of the UK, Spain and Switzerland precluded such scrutiny—was therefore refused. Relying on the Court of Justice’s February 2025 decision in BSH Hausgeräte Gmb H v Electrolux AB, Case C‑339/22, the UPC Paris Local Division confirmed jurisdiction over IMC Creations’ actions against Mul‑ T‑ Lock France and Mul‑ T‑ Lock Switzerland, noting that, as with the court, one of the two defendants is established in France. The court reasoned that a patent proprietor must be able to bring all infringement claims arising across several Member States before a single forum, obtain...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Designs IP rights and competition law Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Tesco aims to curb Lidl damages over Clubcard TM Law360, London: Tesco has urged a London judge to reduce the level of damages Lidl may seek to recover from the British supermarket giant for infringing the German discounter’s trade marks through its Clubcard loyalty pricing programme, maintaining that its deployment of the Clubcard logo also harmed its own brand. See: Tesco seeks to limit Lidl damages over Clubcard TM......
In a judgment issued on 12 March 2025, the court found that the EU Intellectual Property Office was correct to reject evidence submitted by Lidl Vertriebs- Gmb H & Co KG concerning the prior public disclosure of one of its lightbulb designs, and it dismissed the appeal in full. Lidl Vertriebs- Gmb H had asked the EUIPO to invalidate the design owned by Taiwanese company Liquid Leds, arguing the German company’s case that it lacked the 'individual character' required for IP protection. Lidl specifically maintained that the Taiwanese firm’s bulb was essentially the same as earlier designs that had already been made public before the Taiwanese company filed its application. The EUIPO rejected Lidl’s claim, prompting the company to appeal. However, the Board of Appeal dismissed the challenge after officials determined that the earlier designs......
In points of defence lodged on 7 March 2025, Tesco informed the High Court that, while its Clubcard logo might have suggested to shoppers that its prices were comparable with Lidl’s, the approach also brought disadvantages for the UK retailer, and it should therefore not be compelled to pay additional losses. The pleading states that the logo conferred benefits by implying a price‑matching campaign, but any such upside was ultimately outweighed by associated drawbacks. Lidl succeeded in April 2023 with its claim that its competitor had infringed its intellectual property. At that stage, a High Court judge found that the Clubcard programme’s iconography called to mind Lidl’s branding and took unfair advantage of its reputation for low prices. In 2024, Tesco failed to convince the Court of Appeal that its Clubcard branding did not infringe the German discounter’s trade mark. However, the...
The EU General Court confirmed an earlier ruling that the sign applied for by Shorts International Ltd merely describes most of the goods and services listed in its application, notably short films. The judges observed that it is standard practice to use the term 'shorts' to mean short films. They also highlighted that particular film festivals are devoted to works described as 'shorts', reinforcing that convention within the industry. The specification includes services that are likely to relate to, or have as their subject matter, short films; in those circumstances, the word 'shorts' would directly indicate one of their characteristics, namely their brief duration, the court added. Shorts International, based in London, sought a trade mark in 2021 covering a broad range of purposes linked to film and television content. However, EU trade mark examiners refused that application in 2023 for the...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Designs Patents IP and technology General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Duty of fair presentation at without notice hearings ( J& J Snack Foods v Ralph Peters & Sons) In J& J Snack Foods Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd [2025] EWHC 436 ( Ch), Mr Justice Fancourt set aside a £20m freezing order and an associated imaging order that the claimants had secured on a without notice basis. He concluded there had been shortcomings in full disclosure and fair presentation when the court granted the freezing relief ex-parte. Ruling underlines that parties seeking ex-parte measures must provide full and frank disclosure and ensure a fair presentation of the facts. Authored by Amanda Mc...
The European Commission has released the third version of the Code of Practice for GPAI models, intended as a key voluntary instrument enabling firms such as Google and Open AI to show alignment with the EU AI Act. Stakeholders in the talks have until 30 March 2025 to submit written comments, before a fourth and final draft that is anticipated to carry only relatively modest adjustments. See: LNB News 11/03/2025 62. Independent experts steering the Code have altered course from the previous edition, removing the key performance indicators that were designed to evidence compliance with the various commitments. The updated draft acknowledges that the Code should be read alongside guidance to be issued by the Commission’s AI Office, and also states that signatories will be expected to provide regular reports to the Commission on how the Code is being...
Duty of fair presentation at without notice hearings ( J& J Snack Foods v Ralph Peters & Sons) J& J Snack Foods Corp and another company v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd and another [2025] EWHC 436 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The consequences of this decision are substantial for legal practitioners and for parties seeking orders or injunctive relief by way of ex-parte court applications. The judgment reaffirms the obligation of full and frank disclosure on without notice applications. Applicants must place before the court all material facts, including matters that do not assist their position. Information that the attending party can reasonably anticipate would have been advanced by the absent opponent, had they attended, must also be revealed to the judge. A failure to comply can result in the injunction being discharged, even where the relief, or a...
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar advised the Court of Justice that, although the look of such designs might appear a marginal consideration because functionality dominates, EU judges ought to assess the ‘degree of freedom’ open to a designer when deciding if modest visual distinctions between designs suffice to create a different overall impression for the informed user. The dispute arises from an infringement action brought in Hungary by Danish toy maker Lego A/ S, which claims a local business attempted to import construction sets violating one of Lego’s registered designs. The design at issue concerns a toy-building ‘coupling component’ described in court papers as a cylinder with studs together with two axles of cross-section profile. The Budapest High Court rejected Lego’s request to seize the sets, concluding that the design’s ‘creative scope’ was extremely narrow because the shape was wholly determined by its...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
