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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
The EU General Court has affirmed a decision by the European Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO) refusing to register Escobar’s name as a trade mark for Escobar Inc, a holding firm owned by the late Colombian drug lord’s family. It sided with the EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal that, although he was never criminally convicted in Colombian, American or European courts, the Spanish public regard him as ‘an offensive symbol of organised crime causing a great deal of suffering’. The decision added that ‘the fact that Pablo Escobar had never been criminally convicted... did not prejudice the fact that, in view of the image created by literature and films, he was nevertheless perceived... as the leader of a criminal organisation responsible for numerous crimes’. Escobar Inc — a company......
In this issue: Patents Copyright & associated rights IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Patents Interim injunction granted pending outcome of validity trial ( Bayer v Aspire) Bayer holds a patent safeguarding rivaroxaban as a compound. With a supplementary protection certificate extension, that right was scheduled to expire on 1 April 2024, just days after the trial. Bayer also owns EP 961, which covers the use of rivaroxaban in producing tablets for once‑daily oral administration. This patent remains in force until January 2026. The respondents to the injunction were companies aiming to supply generic rivaroxaban after 1 April 2024, including once‑daily tablet products. During the hearing, the judge considered claims seeking the revocation of EP 961......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Copyright General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off Duties owed in fiduciary relationships and operation of section 10B of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( Quantum Advisory v Quantum Actuarial) Lord Justice Newey delivered a trade mark‑focused Court of Appeal decision arising from a complex series of disputes between Quantum Advisory Ltd ( Qu Ad) and Quantum Actuarial LLP ( Qu Ac), the pensions‑fund actuarial services provider to which Qu Ad, following a corporate reorganisation, had outsourced the running of its business under a Services Agreement. At first instance, His Honour Judge Keyser found that Qu Ac breached fiduciary obligations owed to Qu Ad by applying for three trade marks featuring the words ‘ QUANTUM...
Quantum Advisory Ltd v Quantum Actuarial LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 247 What are the practical implications of this case? Brand owners to exercise vigilance when granting powers to third parties over their brands While many lessons arise from this ruling, the standout, practical message for brand owners is to recognise the hazards inherent in delegating parts of, or the day-to-day running of, their enterprise to outside parties. Above all, keep firm control of the brand itself. Owners should scrutinise the terms with distributors, franchisees and other outsourced providers, and make it unmistakably explicit where any trade mark permissions start and end. On the flip side, those contracting with brand owners should treat this as a stark warning about the stringent duties that flow from agency and fiduciary relationships, and the serious fallout for breaching them in an attempt to secure a benefit or capture an asset for one’s own...
JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 276 What are the practical implications of this case? JCB v Manitou is noteworthy because, pursuant to a settlement, JCB was allowed to pursue an appeal to reinstate the Patent. Accordingly, Manitou did not take part in the appeal, whereas the Comptroller General for Patents, Trade Marks and Designs (the ‘ Comptroller’) attended in accordance with Halliburton v Smith [2006] EWCA Civ 185. That decision makes clear that the Court of Appeal will not put back a patent previously ruled invalid unless the lower court’s conclusion is shown to be wrong (para [5]), and that the Comptroller may participate where he or she can assist. The claim interpretation that ultimately resulted in the revocation being overturned appears to have been advanced only at the appellate stage......
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Confidential Information Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights What is the current position of the three-step fair dealing test in Article 5(5) of the EU Info Soc Directive and Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention under UK case law, in an individual dispute where any form of fair dealing is relied upon as a defence to infringement? This Q& A explores the standing of the three-step test for a lawful copyright exception under both Article 5(5) of the EU Info Soc Directive and Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, considering its application to exceptions pleaded case by case under UK authority. It surveys how UK courts have treated these tests historically, and reflects on the possible effects of the Retained EU Law ( Revocation and Reform) Act...
Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk, has said the move is intended to end the 'murky world of non-disclosure agreements' Under plans to curb misuse of NDAs, those bound by confidentiality clauses would still be free to raise alleged criminality with key professionals and crime-fighting bodies. On 28 March 2024, Alex Chalk set out an ambition to end the ‘murky world’ where such agreements are used to conceal wrongdoing, adding that the reforms will make clear in law that gagging orders cannot lawfully be wielded against victims to block justice or silence them. Lawyers and the police Medical practitioners and counsellors Advocates and other organisations that investigate crime The change will not bite immediately; legislation will be brought forward ‘when parliamentary time allows’, the Ministry of Justice said. The Mo J also confirmed the bill will not capture NDAs signed before it secures royal...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Geographical indications IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Trade marks/passing off Supreme Court upholds judgment of the Court of Appeal on targeting ( Lifestyle v Amazon) The Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities Cv v Amazon UK Services Ltd [2024] UKSC 8 has unanimously affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling and its injunction. It found Amazon infringed Lifestyle’s trade marks by targeting UK consumers from its US site and supplying third‑party products bearing a valid US registration that happened to match Lifestyle’s ‘ BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB’ mark. This ruling is notable as the first Supreme Court decision to tackle the nuanced issue of...
In this issue: Copyright Patents Designs General IP IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright IPO publishes UK Code of Practice on Transparency in Music Streaming On 31 January 2024, the UK Intellectual Property Office ( IPO) issued the UK Voluntary Code of Good Practice on Transparency in Music Streaming (the Code). Its aim is to boost clarity around music-streaming licences and royalty flows, and to strengthen creators’ trust that payments are correct. Peter Mason, Senior Associate at Wiggin LLP, reviews the Code, the measures it will bring, routes to enforcement, and wider points for practitioners. See News Analysis: IPO publishes UK Code of Practice on Transparency in Music...
Ocean on Land Technology ( UK) Ltd and another company v Land and others [2024] EWHC 396 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies when certain evidence can be admitted, notably concerning without prejudice communications, within IPEC claims. As the IPEC caters for shorter, simpler, lower-value disputes, parties ought to pause before bringing any interim application and first attempt to resolve the point. The court will approach applications through a strict cost–benefit lens, and the decision emphasises that elaborate interim hearings and applications on marginal issues should be uncommon in the IPEC. It follows that interim steps must align coherently with the questions that will matter at trial. The same approach governs witness evidence: parties should confine themselves to the genuinely contested matters. On admissibility of without prejudice material, the judgment underlines the court’s...
Following the close of submissions on 14 March 2024, High Court judge James Mellor said he would deliver a full judgment in due course, but made clear he was satisfied that Wright’s assertions that he is Satoshi were untrue. ' I'm prepared to say this: Dr Wright is not the inventor of bitcoin,' Judge Mellor stated. ' Dr Wright is not the author of the bitcoin white paper. He is not the person who adopted the name Satoshi Nakamoto.' He explained he was content to reach these provisional conclusions immediately, without any hesitation, because 'the evidence is clear'. The Crypto Open Patent Alliance ( COPA), a coalition of cryptographers, brought the case seeking to prevent Wright from asserting that he created Bitcoin. At the outset of the trial, COPA told the court that Wright is lying and engaging in forgery when he claims to be...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Designs Patents Confidential Information IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Chancery Division allows claim for breach of contract ( Photobooth Props Ltd v NEPBH Ltd) The Chancery Division upheld the claimants’ action in a dispute over the supply of photobooths and related accessories. In Photobooth Props Ltd v NEPBH Ltd [2023] EWHC 3478 ( IPEC), delivering an oral judgment, the court found that the eighth defendant ( MQ), together with the other defendants, had breached both implied and express terms of an oral agreement, including by competing with it and violating rights—copyright among them—that he had transferred to it. MQ had made false, fraudulent statements on which the claimants relied, and the...
Court of Appeal confirms Aldi bottle infringes M& S's registered designs ( Marks & Spencer plc v Aldi Stores Ltd) Marks & Spencer plc v Aldi Stores Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 178 What are the practical implications of this case? The practical upshot is a renewed realisation of the strength of design rights in combating lookalikes. Although trade marks and passing off are often the first avenues pursued when taking action against copycat products, such claims have historically met with limited success. This judgment shows that, when obtained and deployed with care and breadth, registered designs can deliver a winning strategy against lookalikes, particularly where the imitation is sold under a separate brand identity. In this dispute, Aldi’s bottle carried the word ‘ INFUSIONIST’. Because the issues were confined to designs, that difference in branding played no part in assessing the similarity between the...
The EU’s General Court found that time started to run after the July 2014 posts, as roughly 300,000 Instagram users had liked the pop star’s pictures of a white trainer, posted when she took on the role of creative director at the sportswear giant. That interaction triggered the 12‑month grace window for Puma to apply for protection — which it failed to do until July 2016. According to the court, the photographs enabled observers to discern ‘all the features of the prior designs from various angles,’ thereby disclosing the design in advance. A Dutch footwear wholesaler, Handelsmaatschappij J Van Hilst BV, applied in 2019 to invalidate Puma’s filing, contending that multiple images from the star’s account years earlier had stripped the design of its individual character......
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Copyright & associated rights Designs Patents Lex Talk®IP: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q& A Useful information Trade marks/passing off Amazon’s US site found to target UK buyers, infringing UK and EU trade marks ( Lifestyle Equities v Amazon) The Supreme Court, in Lifestyle Equities v Amazon [2024] UKSC 8, rejected Amazon’s appeal, holding that its US platform targeted UK consumers by presenting products on the US site and indicating they were available for shipment to the UK, thereby infringing Lifestyle’s UK and EU trade marks. As a consequence, the injunction and the order for an enquiry as to damages made by the Court of Appeal remain effective. Gina Lodge, partner at Temple Bright, comments on the...
Your Lawyers Ltd v Capital Interchange Ltd & Therium Capital Management Ltd; Your Lawyers Ltd v Capital Interchange Ltd & Therium Capital Ltd [2024] EWHC 287 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This was a lengthy, fact‑heavy judgment, and its chief value for practitioners lies in the court’s appraisal of the prospects of success in some less commonly encountered causes of action. The judge was able to rely on Court of Appeal decisions arising from prior litigation between the Claimant and another party said to be involved in the alleged breach of its confidence, Harcus Sinclair. It was common ground that the Second Defendant had passed on the contents of a ‘ Litigation Pack’ prepared by the Claimant to Harcus Sinclair; the contested issue was whether that pack contained sufficient detail to attract the necessary quality of...
Although Stability AI Ltd. accepts that ‘at least some’ images from the stock photography giant’s site were used to ‘train’ its generative art system, the company — in a defence newly made public at the High Court on Wednesday — again asserted that no training occurred within the UK. ‘ Stable Diffusion was not trained in the UK and we expect to be fully vindicated at trial’, a Stability AI spokesperson told Law360 on 1 March 2024. Getty brought proceedings against Stability AI in the High Court in May 2023, alleging copyright infringement for training Stable Diffusion on millions of its works via an online data set compiled by ‘scraping’ links to photographs and videos, together with their captions, from across the web, including websites such as Getty Images, Flickr and Tumblr. In certain instances, outputs from Stable Diffusion allegedly contained a...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Designs Trade marks/passing off Patents Geographical indications IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Law360 reports that Sony Music has again failed to shut down a copyright claim in England relating to royalties from Jimi Hendrix’s band. A judge in London concluded the bandmates’ estates present an arguable case concerning IP rights tied to music streaming platforms. See: Sony loses bid to stop Hendrix Bandmates' Copyright Trial. Copyright and Performances ( Application to Other Countries) ( Amendment) Order 2024 SI 2024/193: This instrument widens eligibility for specified rights under UK copyright law to certain non- UK nationals by lifting some of the current limitations on extending those rights abroad. The Order takes effect on the...
Legal Service Board report: The misuse of non-disclosure agreements: call for evidence themes and summary of evidence The LSB reported that clients and their legal advisers deploy these binding agreements to hide conduct that is lawful yet unethical, including bullying, settlements involving consumer products, and conflicts in construction and building. Numerous respondents also indicated NDAs are used across workplaces to conclude employment disputes. Matthew Hill, the LSB’s outgoing chief executive, voiced his gratitude to those who contributed to the review, which ran from May to July, noting that the exercise helped to illuminate a corner of legal practice that is, by its very nature, hidden. He further observed that the recurrent patterns set out in the report demonstrate that, when NDAs are misused, the consequences for people’s lives can be devastating......
What are the practical implications of this case? Practitioners and industry participants engaged in negotiating SEP licences will keenly review the terms of the licence determined by the court......
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
