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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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 Designs Geographical indications General IP Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Copyright & associated rights Copyright infringement—the own intellectual creation test and admissions ( THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan) In THJ Systems Ltd v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354, the Court of Appeal ruled that, although the first‑instance judge applied the wrong test, the High Court nonetheless reached the correct outcome: copyright subsisted in multiple features of the software’s graphic interface. The court also concluded that the defendants were not entitled to resist infringement on the footing that there had been no UK communication, having regard to their pleaded case and their admission. This decision will be of marked interest to IP specialists, as it confirms the proper own intellectual creation test and clarifies its application when assessing...
Yours Naturally Naturally Yours Ltd v Kate Mc Iver Skin Ltd and another [2023] EWCA Civ 1493 What are the practical implications of this case? This appeal concerned a conventional—albeit factually intricate—dispute over passing off and copyright infringement. Grant of permission by the Court of Appeal was somewhat unexpected; nevertheless, when granting permission the court encouraged the parties to mediate, an invitation that went unheeded. Of practical significance was the Court of Appeal’s treatment of the parties’ pleaded cases. Practitioners should take care that pleadings mirror the client’s position as ultimately presented at trial. In this instance, several shortcomings emerged. First, goodwill in particular features of the product was not expressly pleaded. Although a trial judge can, in some situations, infer goodwill from the broader evidential context, that approach cannot be assumed to apply across all passing off claims. Second, the judgment...
THJ Systems Ltd and another company v Sheridan and another company [2023] EWCA Civ 1354 What are the practical implications of this case? Copyright This is the second Court of Appeal ruling on copyright within six months, following Wright v BTC Core [2023] EWCA Civ 868 in July 2023. The Court of Appeal again set out the proper approach to deciding whether copyright subsists in a work. The ‘new’ standard is stricter than the former ‘skill and labour’ yardstick and asks whether the work is the author’s own intellectual creation. To satisfy that threshold, the court must be persuaded that, in creating the work, the author could deploy their creative faculties by making free and creative choices, thereby imprinting the result with their personal touch. A modest level of creativity does not bar subsistence, although it does bear on the extent of the...
A consultation has been opened by Intellectual Property Office ( IPO), inviting views on revising how foreign nationals qualify for broadcasting and performance rights under UK copyright law......
In this issue: Patents Trade marks/passing off Copyright Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Patents AI machines cannot be inventors under the UK Patents Act ( Thaler v Comptroller- General) An appeal to the Supreme Court in Thaler v Comptroller- General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] UKSC 49 concerned two UK patent applications that had been personally submitted by the appellant, Dr Thaler. When lodging those applications, he identified an artificial intelligence ( AI) system he owns, called DABUS, as the inventor. The court was asked to decide three principal questions: (i) whether the term ‘inventor’ in the Patents Act 1977 ( PA 1977) extends to AI systems; (ii) whether the owner of an AI system would be the owner of any invention it devises; and (iii)...
Oatly AB v Dairy UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 3204 ( Ch) What was the background? In November 2019, Oatly AB (‘ Oatly’) lodged an application for the word trade mark POST MILK GENERATION for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32, namely oat-based products. During examination, the IPO found the mark to be inherently registrable, considering it distinctive rather than descriptive. After registration, Dairy UK filed for a declaration of invalidity, including under TMA 1994, s 3(4). That provision prevents registration where use is prohibited by law, in this instance Article 78(2) and Part III of Annex VII of Regulation ( EU) 1308/2013 (the EU Regulation), which provides that the term ‘milk’ cannot be used as ‘definitions, designations or sales descriptions’ for products that are not mammary secretions. The Hearing Officer upheld the objection, taking the view that the EU Regulation is aimed at...
Myforest Foods Co v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T-107/23 What are the practical implications of this case? Although the ruling does not chart new territory, it again underscores that a mark may mislead the relevant public even if some consumers would not be deceived. It further confirms that, for food products aimed at people with dietary preferences or restrictions—such as vegans and vegetarians (and potentially gluten-free, etc)—the relevant public remains the general public. As a result, vegan meat alternatives are evaluated in the same way as any other fast-moving supermarket goods. This calls for careful brand development for vegan and meat substitute ranges: where a mark includes an element (for instance, bacon) implying the very item being replaced, it risks being deceptive unless it is paired with a suitable qualifier or a clear means of distancing itself from that...
This News Analysis was first published on 16 June 2023. It has subsequently been updated to take account of the Online Safety Act 2023 and the Retained EU Law ( Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. What is the practical effect of reg 3(2) of the E- Commerce Regulations 2002 The E- Commerce Regulations 2002, SI 2002/2013, set out significant curbs on civil and criminal exposure for providers of online intermediary services (online intermediaries) concerning discrete items of content shared or otherwise conveyed via their systems. Commonly called ‘safe harbours’, these rules restrict the responsibility of online intermediaries, including where they are acting as ‘mere conduits’ ( SI 2002/2013, reg 17), performing ‘caching’ ( SI 2002/2013, reg 18), or ‘hosting’ material ( SI 2002/2013, reg 19). In summary, under the E- Commerce Regulations 2002, online intermediaries are not accountable for unlawful content on their...
Getty Images ( US) Inc and other companies v Stability Al Ltd [2023] EWHC 3090 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? General litigators will find here a clear illustration of the hurdles in obtaining summary judgment or a strike out where a claim rests only on inference. Getty pleaded primary copyright and database infringement on the footing that relevant UK acts could be inferred because Stability’s development team includes a substantial cohort of people living and working in the UK. Both parties put forward material for the hearing. Getty identified social media posts and You Tube videos consistent with the alleged conduct in the UK; Stability served seven witness statements, but these did not comprehensively set out the role of each UK-based team member or the computer systems they could use. The judge concluded there was: material arguably...
Virgin Enterprises Ltd v Brightline Holdings LLC [2023] EWHC 2240 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The decisive issue is how the contractual clause is construed and the meaning assigned to it when assessing whether a breach has occurred. The pertinent expressions in the TMLA were considered unclear, as they were neither defined nor terms of art with a settled, widely recognised meaning among marketing practitioners. Consequently, greater weight had to be given to the factual and commercial background: the overarching purpose of the clause and the agreement containing it; the facts and circumstances known or readily available to both parties at the time of contracting; and commercial common sense—more than is usually required when interpreting a professionally drafted commercial contract. For the defendant to prevail, it needed to demonstrate that the conditions for...
What is the background to the IPO’s Transformation Programme and what stage has the consultation process reached? The UK government unveiled the One IPO Transformation Programme (the Programme) on 22 April 2021. Its objective is to create a centralised, digital platform for administering all UK‑registered intellectual property ( IP) rights, renewing how the UK Intellectual Property Office ( IPO) delivers its services and internal processes, and ironing out unnecessary discrepancies in the treatment of different categories of IP rights. Between 3 November 2022 and 6 January 2023, the IPO conducted its first consultation on how the IP legal framework might be adapted to achieve the Programme’s proposed outcomes. That consultation had two strands, with Part A addressing the digitisation of IPO services and Part B examining the uniform operation of the IPO Tribunal ( Tribunal). It further permitted respondents to nominate...
What IP issues are involved in making a film that is based on a well-known product like the Barbie doll? ‘ Barbie’ is one of the most talked-about films of the summer. When crafting a feature based on a famous product such as the Barbie doll, a host of IP questions arises. We will return to trade mark protection and the more obvious IP categories, but the launch point for a project like Barbie is a knockout script. A production of this scale is threaded with numerous layers of IP, from the screenplay to the music script. Although Greta Gerwig’s direction has been widely highlighted, there has been less focus on her partner and co-writer, Noah Baumbach. Inevitably, there will be intricate contractual arrangements (likely several) covering authorship and ownership of the screenplay and its related copyright. Copyright also safeguards the...
Rancom Security Ltd v Girling and others [2023] EWHC 1115 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment has two strands—a refresher on essential legal principles and a pragmatic guide for disputes practitioners, notably those pursuing civil fraud or dishonesty claims, when building a case. Conflicting evidence Beyond its survey of principle, the court offers a detailed account of how it confronts a routine but difficult problem: conflicting evidence. It sets out the framework for evaluating changing accounts, gaps in proof, defects in disclosure, and the way witness statements and the litigation process can shape witnesses' recollections. The judgment also illustrates the courts' approach to weighing credibility and drawing adverse inferences. While the findings inevitably turn on the facts, and arose within a dishonesty context, the court's treatment of these topics has broader resonance for any disputes lawyer. The sheer range of matters the judge...
Intricate tax planning may amount to confidential information, notwithstanding parallel arrangements by others ( Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd v One E Group) Kieran Corrigan and Co Ltd v One E Group Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 649 ( Ch) (23 March 2023) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling is indispensable reading for practitioners handling disputed confidentiality claims. The judge explored the nuanced considerations underpinning whether particular material is confidential, while also providing a crisp, thorough synopsis of the breach of confidence jurisprudence as a whole, beginning with the test in Coco v AN Clark ( Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41. The discussion spans scenarios where products are already publicly available (yet secrecy is claimed in the design), where the confidential corpus blends ‘public’ with ‘private’ elements, and where numerous ‘public’ components are assembled to yield...
Inter Digital Technology Corp and others v One Plus Technology ( Shenzhen) Co and others [2023] EWCA Civ 166 What are the practical implications of this case? As is long recognised, standard-essential patents must be offered under clear, Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory ( FRAND) terms. In these matters, once technical trials determine, following detailed evidence, that one or more patents are truly essential and valid, a subsequent FRAND trial sets the conditions of a FRAND licence. As part of that process, and as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Unwired Planet v Huawei [2020] UKSC 37, the claimant’s existing licences are carefully examined to identify FRAND terms. Accordingly, SEP infringement actions in the courts of England and Wales commonly see defendants routinely pursuing pre-action disclosure of prior SEP licensing agreements. Given the highly confidential nature of those agreements, the court typically...
The excitement surrounding NFTs has persisted for several years. At its simplest, an NFT is a distinct, verifiable digital asset. A purchaser of an NFT possesses a token that links to a digital file of some variety (most often an image file in practice). Although the visual component of an NFT can be duplicated and shared with ease, the holder in effect owns a digital certificate (conferred by that token) which is logged on a public blockchain (so it cannot be readily changed or altered by third parties). The associated smart contract for the NFT sets out some of the wider rights a holder might enjoy under that contractual framework. Many organisations have treated NFTs as a means to engage and communicate with their ecosystem or community. In that sense, and for certain initiatives, holding the NFT can also provide extra...
How to witness and attest a deed under the Law of Property ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 ( Euro Securities & Finance v Barrett) Euro Securities & Finance Ltd v Barrett and others [2023] EWHC 51 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The safest route to prevent disputes over a deed’s validity is: all principal signatories execute at the same time and in the same location; any witness should be a non-party to the deed and observe the signatures physically, in person; and each witness should attest, separately, every signature they observed, doing so straightaway while remaining in the signatories’ presence. Each of these points ought to be documented in writing. That said, the judge in Euro Securities considered that the LP( MP) A 1989 may afford parties greater latitude. Although much of the discussion was obiter, in essence the judge...
The text and data mining exception The text and data mining exception that would ease copyright rules so computational artificial intelligence ( AI) methods can analyse large volumes of information to detect patterns, trends and ‘other useful information’, often embedded in copyright works, was mooted by the UK Intellectual Property Office ( UK IPO) in June 2022. On 31 January 2023, Lopez acknowledged the IPO was ‘probably surprised...in terms of the level of concern that was expressed’ and confirmed the matter had been discussed further within the government. ‘ I am pretty confident that some of the options the IPO considered to try to create a more permissive environment for AI in this area will not......
TP ICAP Ltd v NEX Group Ltd [2022] EWHC 2700 ( Comm) The claims for breach of warranty stemmed from two probes: one by the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission concerning swaps trading linked to bond issuances and another by a Frankfurt public prosecutor targeting a named director of a group entity in relation to cum-ex trading during the relevant period. In essence, the alleged breaches concerned warranties addressing the following: that no group company, officer, or employee had been the subject of any non-routine investigation of any kind by a ‘ Governmental Authority’ within the prior 18 months; and that no circumstances existed which could reasonably be expected to result in litigation against a group company where the amount in dispute exceeds £500,000. Those warranties were, in places, qualified by a seller-awareness threshold (here defined as the actual knowledge, after...
RTL Television GMBH v Grupo Pestana SGPS SA ECLI- EU- C-2022-643 What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling clarifies the breadth of the cable retransmission right within the Sat Cab Directive and underlines the narrow situations in which broadcasters in Member States may contest the satellite distribution of television or radio programmes. Even where a retransmission of TV or radio output satisfies the technical features in Article 1(3) of Directive 93/83/ EEC (the Sat Cab Directive) and lacks the broadcasting organisation’s authorisation, the broadcaster must, before commencing proceedings, determine whether the retransmitter qualifies as an operator of a traditional cable network. If that party is not a cable operator, broadcasters cannot invoke the cable retransmission right under the Sat Cab Directive. They may, however, still rely on copyright or neighbouring rights, or on any separate cable transmission rights afforded by national...
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
