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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Payone Gmb H v Logo [2024] EWHC 981 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision draws attention to the considerations a court will assess when deciding if material mentioned at a hearing should be treated as being in the public domain and no longer protected by duties of confidence or related restraints. In this matter, the judge held that the documents had not become public and continued to attract confidentiality; however, the court underlined that the assessment is inherently one of fact and degree. The judgment further recorded that, if information has entered the public sphere, the court will not stand in the way of circulation, since doing so would lack any legitimate purpose. Parties engaged in litigation should therefore keep this ruling in view when selecting which documents and information to mention in, and place within the court...
In Citadines v MPLC Deutschland Gmb H ( Case C‑723/22), the Court of Justice delivered a fresh ruling on Article 3(1) of the EU Copyright Directive, addressing the extent of liability for communicating a protected work to the public. The matter came by way of a reference from a German court in proceedings between the hotel operator Citadines Betriebs Gmb H ( Citadines) and the collective management organisation MPLC Deutschland Gmb H ( MPLC). Background The dispute relates to the transmission of an episode from a television series, in which MPLC held the rights. The episode first aired on a public television channel and was subsequently relayed for viewing by guests on television sets installed by Citadines in bedrooms and in the hotel’s fitness area. That relay took place via the hotel’s own cable distribution network. Citadines had already entered into licensing...
Kneipp Gmb H v EUIPO, Case T‑157/23 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision underscores key principles about the legacy reputation of a trade mark whose commercial peak has passed, yet which continues to enjoy a residual standing within the relevant market. It also offers guidance on assessing evidence of the step-by-step build-up of reputation for the purposes of Article 8(5) of Regulation ( EU) 2017/1001. This is particularly pertinent for businesses seeking to file new trade marks that resemble earlier signs linked to once best‑selling, emblematic products. The General Court reiterates that the decisive point in time for establishing the reputation of an earlier mark is the date on which the later applicant files its application. It further indicates that a later filer must demonstrate that, at that very moment, the earlier sign experienced an abrupt and significant collapse in...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off Patents IP and technology General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Copyright & associated rights Limits and opportunities—generative AI systems and the EU TDM copyright exception Giulio Coraggio, partner, Elena Varese, partner, Carolina Battistella, trainee lawyer, and Maria Vittoria Pessina, intern at DLA Piper, Italy, examine the text and data mining ( TDM) copyright carve-out in Directive ( EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the EU DSM Copyright Directive), and its relevance for the deployment of datasets in generative artificial intelligence ( AI). They also outline practical steps for rights holders to opt out of the TDM exception, explain the disclosure duties arising under the EU AI Act, and consider the likely consequences these will have in practice. See News Analysis: Limits and...
Lifestyle Equities CV and Another v Ahmed and Another [2024] UKSC 17 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has delivered its long‑awaited ruling on the appeal and cross‑appeals in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed, proceeding from Lord Justice Birss’s judgment in the Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 675. Lord Leggatt wrote for the court, with Lords Kitchen, Lloyd‑ Jones, Stephens and Richards agreeing. The judgment sets out a series of significant conclusions: Accessory liability (as a joint tortfeasor) in respect of a strict liability tort is not itself governed by the same strict standard. Conversely, an accessory must possess knowledge of the essential aspects of the tort to justify imposing joint liability on a person who has not themselves committed it. The identical test applies whether accessory liability is said to arise by procuring the tort or by...
What is the TDM copyright exception under the EU DSM Copyright Directive and how does it apply to the use of datasets in generative AI? Generative artificial intelligence depends on extensive volumes of data and content to build its learning capacity, support creativity, and deliver dependable outputs. In such a data-centric environment, text and data mining ( TDM) plays a pivotal role in processing material, uncovering knowledge, and training AI models. Article 2 of the EU DSM Copyright Directive—intended to enhance access to protected works and, in turn, drive research and innovation—defines TDM as any automated analytical method used to analyse text and data in digital form to produce information, including (but not limited to) trends, patterns, and correlations. The Directive’s overarching purpose is to widen access to protected content to stimulate research and innovation, while maintaining a fair equilibrium between the rights and...
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...
Bayer Intellectual Property Gmb H & others v Aspire Pharma Ltd & others [2024] EWHC 711 ( Pat) and Sandoz Ag and other companies v Bayer Intellectual Property Gmb H and other companies [2024] EWHC 796 ( Pat) What was the background? Xarelto® (rivaroxaban) is an anticoagulant and Bayer’s top-selling medicine. Patent disputes have been ongoing in the UK and elsewhere for years, though in the UK the conclusion may now be approaching. Bayer’s compound patent ( EP 1 261 606) lapsed in December 2020, but a supplementary protection certificate ( SPC) kept rivaroxaban under protection until it ended on 1 April this year. Bayer also owns a patent with Swiss-form claims that broadly concern using rivaroxaban in tablets for once-daily oral dosing, expiring in January 2026 ( EP 1 845 961, the ‘ Once- Daily’ patent). Starting in 2022, multiple generic companies launched...
The EU's General Court decided on 8 May 2024 that The Not Co Sp A could not obtain a trade mark for its line of nondairy beverages because it didn't take much mental effort for consumers to understand that 'not milk' meant that the drinks lacked dairy products. The court explained that the English-speaking public would instantly and unambiguously take the sign as an informative statement about the drink’s composition and, echoing the board of appeal, concluded that the phrase 'not milk' is descriptive. Not Co had filed for registration in July 2021 covering vegetable drinks and milk substitutes. The mark’s wording appeared vertically, with 'not' in black lettering and 'milk' shown in a light blue shade......
Advocate General Maciej Szpunar stated in a non-binding view that video game developers (in this instance, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd) should not be permitted to prevent external companies from creating cheat software tools that adjust the manner a game operates, since such tools do not modify the copyright-protected source code. Szpunar rejected Sony’s “illusory” contention that its monopoly over the game code extends to encompass the way in which the game plays out in practice, including effort to prohibit cheat programmes that make the game easier for the user. “ In the same fashion, the author of a detective novel cannot forbid a reader from turning to the end of book to see who the killer is,......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Copyright & associated rights 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 A Merck-y saga—partial declaratory relief to be granted to pharmaceutical giant Merck KGa A following Merck, Sharpe & Dohme’s use of MERCK marks in the UK ( Merck v Merck) In a meticulously detailed 514-paragraph judgment, Mr Justice Edwin Jones reviewed 55 occasions on which the claimant, Merck KGa A, said five defendants, including Merck, Sharpe & Dohme LLC (together MSD), used the word ‘ Merck’ contrary to the parties’ 1970 Agreement, infringed Merck KGa A’s UK trade marks and breached a July 2020 injunction. Rather than pursue contempt, Merck KGa A opted to seek declaratory relief. Although MSD...
Fake reviews plague online shopping. A pensioner from Lincolnshire, in England’s east, paid £600 ($750) in February 2022 to Euro Resales to advertise and sell a property his wife inherited after her father’s death. However, soon after the fee was transferred, the firm went silent, leaving him to appoint another estate agent. Trustpilot spotlighted his experience after securing a UK order that prohibits Euro Resales from purchasing and posting fabricated reviews on its platforms. Ferdinando is merely one among countless shoppers misled into buying after seeing sham reviews online on sites such as Amazon and Tripadvisor. Consumer group Which estimates roughly one in seven reviews are bogus, with scammers siphoning about $152bn worldwide, including $5bn in the UK. It isn’t only firms seeking to burnish their image. Counterfeit goods, a $464bn market and the second-biggest revenue stream for organised crime after illegal drugs, are also...
A Merck-y saga— Merck KGa A to obtain partial declaratory relief following Merck, Sharpe & Dohme’s use of MERCK marks in the UK ( Merck v Merck) Merck KGa A v Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC and other companies [2024] EWHC 820 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling stops short of laying down hard rules on when a court should exercise its discretion to issue declaratory relief, but it does consolidate several important authorities on the topic. The court referenced the following decisions: Nokia Corp v Inter Digital Technology Corp [2006] EWCA Civ 1618 Financial Services Authority v Rourke [2001] Lexis Citation 2268 Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc v British Phonographic Industry Ltd [1985] Lexis Citation 1288 Invest Bank PSC v El- Husseini [2003] EWHC 3350 ( Comm) (not reported by Lexis...
The artists' complaint Filed in California federal court on 3 May 2024, the artists’ lawsuit focuses on Imagen, a text‑to‑image diffusion system that employs machine learning to create pictures from user prompts. Comparable legal actions have been brought against other artificial intelligence ( AI) firms, this appears to be the first aimed at Google LLC’s iteration, their counsel told Law360 on 29 April 2024. Matthew Butterick, one of the solicitors for the artists, stated on 29 April 2024 that the pleading outlines another episode of a multi‑trillion‑dollar technology giant opting to train a commercial AI tool on others’ copyrighted material without consent, attribution or payment. The claim asserts that Imagen is trained by duplicating an enormous volume of digital images and extracting protected expression from those works. The artists said it relies on a dataset assembled by the non‑profit Large‑scale Artificial...
A cross-party alliance of MPs and peers in Parliament’s Upper House has issued a report showing that 77% of those polled regard AI-created music that fails to acknowledge the original artist as theft. Four in five respondents said the law should be amended to outlaw using an artist’s music to train AI software without that artist’s consent. Kevin Brennan, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Music, said AI is exerting a profound influence on our musical landscape. He argued that the UK must seize AI’s transformative potential in shaping the future of music if it is to maintain its status as a powerhouse for music exports and the cultivation of world-class talent. Parliament, he warned, must confront the threat that unrestrained advances in AI could pose to the UK’s......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Geographical indications Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Comparative advertising— High Court gives preliminary ruling on features compared ( Gibraltar v Viovet) The High Court, in Gibraltar ( UK) Ltd v Viovet Ltd [2024] EWHC 777 ( Ch), delivered a preliminary view on which attributes were set against each other in comparative adverts for veterinary nutraceuticals. The ruling underscores that implied messaging can matter as much as explicit claims when deploying comparative advertising. Online customers selecting a trade marked product were presented with the retailer’s own-brand option and prompted to ‘ Swap and Save’. The retailer said the comparison was limited to price, whereas the trade mark owners argued the ads...
The earlier regime on geographical indications (granting holders the sole entitlement to state that a product comes from a defined region, such as Champagne) forced producers in three sectors to apply through distinct processes. However, the updated rules, released on 11 April 2024, introduce a 'unitary and exhaustive system'. Associations of producers and industry bodies may now decide that specified sustainability measures are compulsory for members who wish to keep labelling their goods with a premium designation. Tackling climate change, moving towards a circular economy, and championing rare seeds and indigenous plant varieties are all allowable aims, according to......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off IP and technology General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Trade marks/passing off Escobar TM too shocking for general public, EU court rules Law360: A European court has rejected an attempt by Pablo Escobar’s family to register his name as a trade mark, finding it carries ‘highly offensive and shocking’ connotations tied to drug trafficking and narcoterrorism. See: Escobar TM too shocking for general public, EU court rules. IP and technology The first Czech case on generative AI For the first time, the Czech courts have directly considered copyright protection for works created with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence ( AI)......
In this matter, the claimant created an image using the DALL- E software application. The instruction read: 'produce a depiction of two parties signing a commercial contract in a formal environment, such as a conference room or a law firm office in Prague. Show only hands'. The claimant subsequently uploaded the resulting image to their own website. The defendant took the image from the claimant’s site and published it on their own. The claimant objected and, asserting authorship of the AI-generated picture, thereafter required that it be removed and not any longer shared or distributed or otherwise made available without their permission as author......
Note: the CPRC has stopped issuing the background papers alongside the minutes; therefore, this News Analysis is not accompanied by documents elucidating the discussions. A copy of the minutes is available here: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting. Welcome, action log and matters arising (item 1) The Chair reported the appointment of His Honour Judge Hywel James and Master Lisa Sullivan to the Committee. Approval was given to the minutes of the 2 February 2023 meeting (see News Analysis: Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—2 February 2024). The following points arose that were not dealt with under subsequent items: court documents ( UKSC Cape v Dring) consultation: this closed on 8 April 2024, with a proposal to return the issue for discussion at the May 2024 meeting Standard Disclosure in Workplace Claims— Annex C to the Pre- Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims: HHJ Jarman KC...
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
