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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Court of Justice rules on communication to the public for TVs in short-term lets ( GEMA v GL) The court concluded that a landlord renting out short-term flats in a block, where each unit has its own television with an indoor aerial, infringes copyright by communicating every broadcast received by those sets to the tenants. Authored by Phillip Johnson, Professor of Commercial Law at Cardiff University and barrister at Packington IP. See News Analysis: Court of Justice rules on communication to the public for TVs in short-term lets ( GEMA v GL)......
In this issue: General Election 2024 Trade marks/passing off Patents Copyright & associated rights General IP IP and technology Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information General Election 2024 General Election 2024—parliamentary process, wash-up and manifesto pledges This News Analysis brings together cross-practice coverage of the 2024 General Election. It features contributions from practice area specialists, Practical Guidance, news, analysis and journal pieces. For IP, the package also reviews the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—parts of which commenced on 24 May 2024 during the wash-up—and sets out the main parties’ manifesto commitments. It further examines AI regulation and the potential impact of those pledges in this sphere. See News Analysis: General Election...
GEMA v GL, Case C‑135/23 What are the practical implications of this case? The reach of the Court of Justice’s ruling is unclear. It could be read as finding that any property with a television or radio for short‑term lets (such as Air Bn B) communicates all broadcasts to the public. Consequently, a copyright licence would be needed before any EU premises can be let, or the television and radio removed. Unlikely the judgment covers a single one‑off short let, but the more a letting resembles a hotel, the likelier a licence is required. The line between those who must obtain a licence to let and those who do not remains uncertain. What was the background? There is a block of 18 apartments used for short‑term lets......
Jellycat asserts that the German supermarket chain has been selling a lookalike of its ‘ Dexter Dragon’ soft toy in shops across the UK since late April, as stated in its High Court claim. In submissions on 13 June, now public, the company argued the designs are so alike that an informed user would not gain a different overall impression. The soft toy maker maintains that Aldi’s dragon teddy replicates both the shape and stance of Dexter Dragon. According to the claim, both versions show a dragon resting on its stomach with four legs outstretched and ‘protruding, scalloped ears’. The two dragon toys are also said to have comparable scales along their spines and scalloped wings......
Engineer. AI Global Ltd v APPY PIE Ltd and another company [2024] EWHC 1430 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is highly significant for advisers guiding clients in the AI and technology space on trade mark strategy and protection. Generic sector terms (for example, ‘ Builder’), even when paired with tech-related suffixes such as ‘.ai’ or ‘ Pro’, or given only slight stylisation, are liable to be treated as descriptive and lacking inherent distinctiveness. Advisers should caution clients against choosing such terms as their brands. Distinctiveness is always assessed from the standpoint of the relevant public for the goods or services associated with the mark. The ruling further highlights the vital importance of the quality and consistency of evidence in trade mark matters, particularly where a claimant must establish acquired distinctiveness or reputation....
Parliamentary process On 22 May 2024, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, asked the King to dissolve Parliament so a general election could take place on 4 July 2024, and the King consented. As a result, Parliament was prorogued on 24 May 2024 and formally dissolved on 30 May 2024. The parliamentary timetable is set out below: 22 May: The Prime Minister asked the King to use the prerogative to dissolve Parliament 22 May: King Charles approved the request and a general election was announced nationwide 23 May: ‘ Wash-up’ period begins 24 May: Parliament is prorogued 25 May: Pre-election period of sensitivity begins (previously known as ‘purdah’) 30 May: Parliament is dissolved 30 May: Pre-election period starts 4 July: General election 17 July: State Opening of Parliament For an explanation of the ‘wash-up’ period and the period of...
The PRS is already subject to a planned collective lawsuit over its licensing administration and royalty distribution practices. In a statement, PACE Rights Management, an advocacy group for music rights holders, revealed that a cohort of UK songwriters and composers, among them Robert Fripp of the rock band King Crimson, has begun legal proceedings against their collective management organisation, PRS. The objective is to 'revamp the execution of procedures and policies' considered 'detrimental to their interests' and to PRS members broadly alike......
Proposals by MPs to introduce a new form of 'personality right' in UK law Plans by MPs to create a new ‘personality right’ in UK law intended to shield performers and public figures from AI-generated fake material may add little to what home-grown rules already provide at present, according to commentators. Hayley Brady, a partner at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, observed that bolting image protections into the UK IP framework might not significantly extend coverage much beyond defamation and tort; yet, if it did, it would represent a marked shift towards protecting individuals. In early May 2024, a cross-party set of MPs and peers issued a report urging Parliament to enact a swathe of new laws designed to rein in artificial intelligence, prioritising the protection of creative workers from generative AI programmes. Among the recommendations was a call for government to establish a...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights AI companies might need licensing agreements to use content protected by copyright in the EU for AI training Artificial intelligence ( AI) developers including Open AI and Google Deep Mind could be required to obtain licensing agreements from European rights holders to employ copyrighted material when training generative AI tools and systems such as Chat GPT and Gemini. The European Commission intends to cultivate a market for training data by unveiling a stronger reservation‑of‑rights mechanism, allowing rights holders to guard their content against automated data scraping practices. See News Analysis: AI companies might need licensing agreements to use EU‑copyrighted content for AI training......
More than a year on from its original introduction in the House of Commons, the DMCCA 2024 secured Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. The Act ushers in sweeping updates to UK competition rules and consumer enforcement, together with a fresh regime to oversee designated Big Tech firms across the UK. Key takeaways the DMCCA 2024 has finished its passage through Parliament. Although additional rules and guidance are still required, the central reforms are anticipated to commence later this year following completion of that process overall the Act delivers the government’s digital markets strategy, featuring tailored conduct codes for specified digital businesses and a bespoke merger control system for designated companies and groups in the sector the legislation also makes major changes to the UK competition and consumer frameworks, including the following key elements and specific measures: ...
Texas Instruments Inc (incorporated in Delaware, USA) v Network System Technologies Llc (incorporated in Delaware, USA) [2024] EWHC 1066 ( Pat) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reiterates that expedited trials of patent disputes will be ordered only in narrow scenarios, namely where there is ‘real, objectively viewed urgency’ (para [9]), in line with WL Gore & Associates GMBH v Geox Sp A [2008] EWCA Civ 622 and Petter v EMC Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 480. The judge considered that, where a party is ready to offer undertakings that remove the need for expedition, that solution is preferable. That said, if the undertakings proposed leave a clear commercial ‘gap’ in the protection provided to the recipient, expedition can be justified. It also appears that, when deciding applications to expedite trial, the court is unlikely to place much (if any) weight on the...
Giuseppe Abbamonte, who heads media policy at the Commission, noted that the EU’s executive has been locked in ‘endless’ talks with rights holders over whether European copyright rules function effectively in reality when applied to generative AI tools such as Open AI’s Chat GPT and Google’s Gemini. Opt-out protocol Under Directive ( EU) 2019/790—the EU Digital Single Market Copyright Directive, known as the EU DSM Copyright Directive—there is a text and data mining exception that permits content owners to ‘opt out’ of scraping of online material by a reservation of rights. However, implementing it in practice is proving difficult today. ‘ The primary hurdle is the absence of a recognised, machine‑readable opt‑out protocol—there is no standardised method to state a reservation of rights,’ Abbamonte observed at the AI and Copyright: policy, challenges and perspectives, Digital Constitutionalism & Policy on 20 June...
In this issue: Trade marks Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks Morley’s fries copycat franchise in trade mark proceedings ( Morley’s v Nanthakumar) A thriving takeaway franchise facing imitators prevailed in a trade mark infringement claim. The primary defence hinged on a settlement agreement, yet that agreement a) offered no benefit to franchisees, and b) did not authorise the use at issue in any event. The matter provides practical insights for those involved in litigation. Arguably more noteworthy are the drafting takeaways arising from the settlement agreement tested in court. The court also concluded there was joint tortfeasorship on the part of an individual defendant. Authored by Giles Parsons, partner at Browne Jacobson, and Conor Moran, associate at Browne Jacobson......
Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd v Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd; Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd v Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 477 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal in Drax appears to have taken a commercially minded, substance‑over‑form stance when construing notification clauses. On one view, that marks a move away from the robust (and arguably overly stringent) approach seen in recent authorities, including the High Court’s decision in Drax and the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Decision Inc Holdings Proprietary Ltd v Garbett [2023] EWCA Civ 1284 ( Garbett). In Garbett, Newey LJ held that a similarly worded clause required the claimant to give an estimated amount for each individual breach, rather than a single global figure for the entire claim. Garbett can read as somewhat severe, and how far its reasoning coheres in...
Morley’s ( Fast Foods) Ltd v Nanthakumar and others [2024] EWHC 1369 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? The trade mark issues were unremarkable; the judge had little difficulty concluding that the defendants’ principal sign infringed. The real battleground was whether the sign they adopted amounted to a ‘reasonable modification’ of the settlement sign and was therefore authorised under the settlement agreement. The court decided it was not. With hindsight, the claimant may feel the settlement could have been framed differently to avoid this dispute... ‘ Reasonable modifications’ might have been expressly defined, even though the court’s construction in this instance was favourable to the claimant... A dedicated dispute resolution mechanism could have been included to secure a swifter, lower‑cost determination... The agreement offered no safeguard to the defendant franchisees. To shield franchisees from future claims, a...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Court of Appeal rules on trade mark royalty provisions ( Virgin Aviation TM Ltd v Alaska Airlines Inc) In Virgin Aviation TM Ltd v Alaska Airlines Inc [2024] EWCA Civ 622, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s construction of a licensing agreement between Alaska Airlines Inc ( Alaska) and the claimant, Virgin, rejecting Alaska’s challenge. The core question was whether a particular clause displaced Alaska’s duty, under the licence, to pay the stipulated ‘ Minimum Royalty’ for each financial year. The court confirmed by declaration that Virgin was entitled to not less than the Minimum Royalty in every financial year, irrespective of Alaska generating any gross sales from use of the...
The Court of Appeal ruled that Alaska Airlines had undertaken to pay Virgin a minimum royalty rate under a licence agreement and could not avoid that obligation during the contractual term by electing to drop the brand. Delivering the court’s view for the three-judge panel, Lord Justice Stephen Phillips stated that Alaska’s construction of the agreement was wrong, as it would still leave the airline with control over the Virgin brand and the capacity to prevent rivals from using it, at no cost. He explained that Alaska’s stance was that it should be permitted to hold, and effectively sterilise, valuable intellectual property rights for as long as 25 years while paying nothing; however, it is obvious that some remuneration would be both anticipated and required......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& As Useful information Trade marks/passing off Mc Donald’s loses EU Big Mac trade mark in respect of poultry products Following a judgment of the General Court, Mc Donald’s has lost its EU trade mark Big Mac for poultry products. The court found Mc Donald’s had not shown genuine use of the contested mark over a continuous five-year period for the goods ‘chicken sandwiches’, the goods ‘foods prepared from poultry products’ and the services ‘rendered or associated with operating restaurants and other establishments or facilities engaged in providing food and drink prepared for consumption and for drive-through facilities; preparation of carry-out foods’. The material provided gave no real...
In this issue: Patents Confidential Information Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents WIPO Member States adopt IP, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge Treaty WIPO Member States have adopted a Treaty on IP, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, signalling the resilience of multilateralism within the IP arena. Under this Treaty, patent applicants must state the country of origin or the source of the genetic resources where a claimed invention in a patent application draws on such resources, and it also establishes a mandatory disclosure obligation for patents based on genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge. See: LNB News 29/05/2024 40......
The dispute stemmed from a 2012 agreement for the modernisation of DBS’ services (the ‘ Agreement’), under which TCS undertook to assume control of and operate DBS’ legacy platforms whilst creating new digital offerings. From day one, the programme suffered delays, prompting a reset of contractual milestones. TCS maintained that DBS was the source of those delays and, in particular, that DBS’ IT hosting provider, Hewlett Packard Enterprises ( HPE), caused a critical delay. DBS contended that the true cause was that TCS’ software was not ready to be deployed on the infrastructure owing to slippage in the development and testing of the software, and further said it bore no responsibility for HPE’s activities. TCS sought £110m in delay damages. DBS advanced a counterclaim for delay, together with claims tied to deficient software quality. A separate,...
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
