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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
PSN Recruitment Ltd (trading as Cosmopolitan) v Ludley and Greenscape Specialist Recruitment Ltd [2023] EWHC 3153 ( IPEC)) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment strengthens established principles on confidentiality and the law of confidence, and clarifies how protected confidential material should be assessed and categorised. Whilst it cannot be presumed that any client database is automatically confidential, a significant line of authority indicates that lists containing active and target client contact details typically satisfy the requirements for confidence, and this ruling now further endorses that stance. The decision also highlights the need for parties to provide full cooperation to the court and to avoid obstructive conduct, reflected both in the approach to the damages award and, more broadly, in Her Honour Judge Clarke’s remarks on the defendant’s behaviour and conduct throughout. In particular, Ludley’s destruction of evidence and his breach of the duty owed to...
In 2022, the Court of Justice disposed of just under 30 intellectual property appeals, yet in 2023 it heard only four. Commentators in the field cannot pinpoint the cause of this decline, and the slowdown is ill-timed as practitioners press the top courts for guidance on live issues. Richard May of Osborne Clarke LLP cautioned that, without a steady flow of CJEU rulings, confidence in particular points of law will ebb. Conflicting Decisions Consequently, for all but a small number of trade mark matters, the EU’s General Court stands as the only forum outside the European Intellectual Property Office ( EUIPO), and diverging outcomes have left certain areas of doctrine less clear than lawyers would wish. Moreover, the General Court has itself been taking fewer appeals from EUIPO decisions, increasing the strain on the Board of Appeal as the final destination for a growing share of trade mark...
While the EU AI Act is not meant to interfere with copyright matters, the leaked draft recognises data’s vital role in building AI systems and introduces tailored requirements and constraints to balance innovation with copyright and related rights. In doing so, it mirrors the EU copyright framework, particularly the ‘commercial’ text and data mining ( TDM) exception in Article 4 of Directive ( EU) 2019/790 (‘ EU DSM Copyright Directive’). Guided by the recitals and the Act’s specific provisions, the following principles apply: Adherence to copyright law—providers of general-purpose AI models in the EU market must comply with EU copyright and related rights and, in particular, identify and honour reservations of rights expressed by right holders under the EU DSM Copyright Directive, regardless of where copyright-relevant training took place (recitals 60i–j) Copyright policy—providers must adopt a policy to respect EU copyright law, including...
Crafts Group Llc v M/ S Indeutsch International and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 87 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal endorsed Judge Hacon’s first‑instance approach, namely following Lord Justice Floyd’s guidance in IPCom v HTC [2013] EWCA Civ 1496 on staying a patent action in the English courts in light of pending oppositions to a European patent before the EPO. While that authority concerns patents, Lord Justice Arnold recognised that, although patents and trade marks are not perfectly comparable, it was proper to draw on that guidance in a trade mark setting. That conclusion is hardly startling, yet it is reassuring for practitioners to see it expressly validated. The court also weighed the real‑world effects of any stay, noting that the rival stay regimes advanced by the appellant and the respondents would markedly alter the case...
Audi AG v GQ, Case C‑334/22 What are the practical implications of this case? Producing replacement components that feature a recess intended for fitting an OEM trade mark badge can constitute trade mark infringement, within the EU, in certain circumstances. The ramifications for the spare parts sector are extensive, as it may stop them identifying goods by brand references and erode the notion that consumers deserve a choice between genuine and independent spares in an open, competitive internal market across all Member States. The ruling also seems at odds with the AG’s views in matters such as Louboutin ( Cases C‑148/21 and C‑184/21) and gives scant weight to forthcoming EU repair laws. It signals likely challenges in implementing new repair rules and the prospect of additional movements in jurisprudence and regulation once the Repair Directive comes into force in practice across the...
Delta Sport Handelskontor Gmb H v European Union Intellectual Property Office, T-537/22, ECLI- EU- T-2024–22 What are the practical implications of this case? Article 8(1) of Regulation ( EC) No 6/2002 states that Community design protection does not extend to shapes whose appearance is determined by technical function, nor to designs concerning interconnections. Such subject matter is intended for patent protection, which is time-bound and subject to pre-grant examination. Read together with Article 8(1), the court also examined Article 8(3) of Regulation ( EC) No 6/2002, which permits protection for designs of products that belong to a modular system, even where interconnection features are present. The ruling confirms that the modular systems exception applies even if a feature of the design is not solely the result of technical requirements. It further confirms that the onus to prove...
Iconix Luxembourg Holdings Sarl v Dream Pairs Europe Inc and another company [2024] EWCA Civ 29 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment matters to practitioners in two respects. First, it offers clear direction on how to evaluate the likelihood of confusion: look at how the trade marks are encountered in the real world. The Court of Appeal cautioned against the common trap of assessing marks only on paper without considering their presentation to the public post-sale confusion constitutes trade mark infringement. Arnold LJ set this out in Datacard v Eagle and, as he explained in Montres Breguet, it is now an established element of UK trade mark law for logos, where a logo functions as a single sign, assessment must address the sign in its entirety, without carving out parts or altering its overall...
In this issue: Trade marks/passing off Patents Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Trade marks/passing off IPEC rejects trade mark and passing off action in lemon cider dispute ( Thatchers v Aldi) The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court ( IPEC) in Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2024] EWHC 88 ( IPEC) dismissed claims of trade mark infringement and passing off brought by Thatchers against Aldi regarding the packaging of a cloudy lemon cider. While the court recognised Thatchers’ goodwill and reputation in its mark and product, it concluded that Aldi’s use of a similar sign neither generated a likelihood of confusion nor took unfair advantage of, or caused detriment to, Thatchers’ trade mark. The ruling reinforces the close examination of evidence in lookalike matters and the rising bar for...
In a Federal Register notice scheduled for publication on Tuesday 13 February 2024, the patent office outlined guidance intended to provide clearer direction to applicants and USPTO personnel, as AI systems assume a larger role in innovation. The notice stated that, while AI-assisted inventions are not automatically unpatentable, the inventorship inquiry should prioritise human contributions, because patents exist to incentivise and reward human ingenuity. When several individuals create an invention jointly, each must have made a ‘significant contribution’ to the claimed invention to be named as an inventor under existing case law. The office added that the same legal standards apply where a human generates an invention with assistance from AI. In a blog post, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal said the correct balance must be found between granting patent protection to promote human ingenuity and investment in AI-assisted inventions, while not...
Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd [2024] EWHC 88 ( IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling spotlights the challenges brand owners face in tackling lookalikes in a fast-moving, competitive alcoholic drinks market. The court assessed evidence on reputation, intention, confusion and damage, but found it fell short for both trade mark infringement and passing off. Showing that the Thatchers product acted as a benchmark for Aldi’s development was not, on its own, compelling. Numerous design choices were said to have been reached orally within Aldi, hindering Thatchers’ ability to prove how much its brand was relied upon. Internal emails indicated the Thatchers brand was considered; however, viewed together, that material did not meet the thresholds for reputational advantage or harm. Reputation, intention, confusion and damage not proved to the requisite...
In this issue: IP and technology Trade marks Patents IP and technology Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information IP and technology UK’s AI copyright code talks breakdown, government says MLex: The UK government said today that artificial intelligence ( AI) developers and copyright owners have not reached consensus on a practical voluntary code of conduct to tackle copyright matters, so ministerial involvement will now be needed. In its published reply to the consultation on the AI white paper, it added that ‘regrettably, it is now evident the working group will not be able to reach agreement’ on a route forward within the framework proposed by the Intellectual Property Office ( IPO). See: UK’s AI copyright code talks break down, government says......
Today, the UK government stated that talks between AI makers and copyright owners had not produced an agreed voluntary code of conduct to address copyright concerns, meaning ministerial action will certainly be needed. In releasing its reply to the public consultation on the AI white paper, the government noted that ‘regrettably, it is now apparent the working group will be unable to reach agreement’ on a path ahead within the structure defined by the IPO......
In a statement on 26 January 2024, Italy’s government announced it concluded a headquarters agreement with the UPC, making it the third site within the organisation’s central division. Paris and Munich serve as the other two headquarters in the central division......
Industria de Diseño Textil SA ( Inditex) v Buongiorno Myalert SA , Case C-361/22 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice confirms that the exception operates as a broadly framed rule, despite the recurring and ambiguous wording ‘in particular’. The pertinent test is now whether the sign was used for identifying or referring to goods or services as those of the trade mark proprietor, so long as that use was in accordance with honest practices. A defendant may still invoke the earlier Gillette jurisprudence (see below), yet the court has underlined that the defence now has a wider reach than before. Claimants should closely assess the degree to which the challenged use aligns with ‘honest practices’, and weigh whether alternative causes of action—such as copyright infringement where a logo is deployed—might be more...
In this issue: Copyright & associated rights Trade marks/passing off General IP 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 Court dismisses application to strike out and orders trial ( Noel Redding Estate v Sony Music) In Noel Redding Estate Ltd v Sony Music Entertainment Ltd [2024] EWHC128 ( Ch), the Chancery Division considered an effort to strike out proceedings issued by the claimant companies. The claimants, two former members of The Jimi Hendrix Experience, seek to confirm that they hold shares in the sound recording copyrights in the band’s music and entitlement to certain performers’ property rights. The defendant ( Sony) pursued summary judgment and/or a strike out of the claim in its entirety, or alternatively specific parts. The court determined, among other matters, that the application would be largely refused. The claims regarding copyright and...
Easygroup Ltd v Easy Live ( Services) Ltd and others [2023] EWCA Civ 1508 What are the practical implications of this case? As Lord Justice Arnold noted, instances where misrepresentation is proven yet no damage is shown are scarce as hens’ teeth, so there are correspondingly few reasoned rulings on damage in passing off. This decision supplies much-needed direction. Three recognised heads of damage can complete the tort: lost revenue harm to repute damage to an existing or prospective licensing/endorsement business The third head is especially pertinent in unusual situations—like here—where trade mark infringement under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ( TMA 1994) fails because the goods and services are dissimilar, yet goodwill and misrepresentation are made out. Unlike TMA 1994, s 10(2), passing off may not impose a threshold similarity of goods or services; however, proof of damage remains a...
Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1478 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal recorded that Samsung placed weight on a shield to financial remedies found in the Electronic Commerce ( EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (the E‑ Commerce Regulations), SI 2002/2013, reg 19, which transposes Directive 2000/31/ EC (the EU E‑ Commerce Directive). Samsung characterised this as both its most compelling ground of appeal and its most consequential one, in the specific circumstances. Regulation 19 of the E‑ Commerce Regulations affords hosting providers a defence in respect of liability for material posted on their platforms, so long as they lack knowledge of the unlawful character of that material and, once alerted, act promptly to remove it or to block access. Samsung’s central contention was that, because the watch‑face applications were created and...
On 12 January 2024, the United Kingdom formally put its name to the 2019 Hague Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Hague Judgments Convention). This News Analysis examines what the Hague Judgments Convention sets out, and why the UK’s decision to join it is especially significant for Banking & Finance practitioners in particular. What is the Hague Judgments Convention? The Hague Judgments Convention establishes a shared framework of rules for recognising and enforcing civil and commercial court decisions originating from States that become parties to it (the Contracting States). The EU and Ukraine are, at present, Contracting States to the Hague Judgments Convention; however, a range of other states have signed, among them the US and, now, the UK. The Tracker— Hague Judgments Convention offers details on whether a jurisdiction has signed the...
In this issue: Patents General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents Court of Appeal guidance on unjustified threats due to IP complaints filed with online marketplace ( NOCO Company v Shenzhen Carku Technology Co Ltd) After the first instance ruling in Shenzhen Carku Technology Co, Ltd v NOCO Co [2022] EWHC 2034 ( Pat) (4 August 2022), NOCO appealed on a point of law, maintaining that the complaints it had lodged with Amazon under the ‘ Amazon Intellectual Property Policy’ did not constitute a threat of infringement proceedings. Although Amazon’s framework for addressing IP complaints can be characterised as an alternative dispute resolution route, the Court of Appeal stressed that the statutory test asks whether a reasonable person, standing in Amazon’s position on receipt of the...
The NOCO Company v Shenzhen Carku Technology Co Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1502 What are the practical implications of this case? In this ruling, the Court of Appeal considered whether using Amazon’s Intellectual Property Rights ( IPR) reporting mechanism could constitute a threat of infringement proceedings for the purposes of unjustified threats. Section 70 of the Patents Act 1977 requires an objective assessment: would a reasonable person understand the communication as alleging patent infringement? E‑commerce platforms typically provide IPR channels for rights owners to flag and seek removal of purportedly infringing listings. The court revisited these aspects to decide if the communications crossed the line into threats of proceedings for patent infringement. This judgment examined if a platform IPR complaint can amount to a patent threat, analysing the setting of the notifications, the nature of the defendant’s dealings with Amazon, and the specifics of...
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
