Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Intellectual Property - From: 1995 To: 1995

This page lists 35 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.


 
 Godfrey -v- Lees; 1995 - [1995] EMLR 307

 
 Wagamama -v- City Centre Restaurants plc; ChD 1995 - [1995] FSR 713

 
 Plastus Kreativ AB -v- Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co; 1995 - [1995] RPC 438

 
 PLG Research Ltd and Another -v- Ardon International Ltd and Others; CA 1995 - Times, 25 November 1994; [1995] RPC 287
 
Assidoman Multipack Ltd -v- The Mead Corporation [1995] RPC 321
1995


Intellectual Property
In patents law, the Catnic approach accords with the Protocol.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Kitechnology BV -v- Unicor GmbH; CA 1995 - [1995] FSR 795; [1995] IL Pr 568
 
Breville Europe -v- Thorn EMI Domestic Appliances Ltd [1995] FSR 77
1995
ChD
Falconer J
Intellectual Property
Copyright was asserted in plastic shapes used as moulds for the heated plates in a sandwich toaster. Held. The defendants had not appropriated the plaintiff's designs contained in their drawings in producing their own machine. Falconer J (obiter) said: "Turning to the plaster shapes or sculptures, the defendants contended that these were not sculptures within the meaning of section 3 of the Copyright Act on the ground . . that they were purely mechanical or functional devices [under] section 1 of the definition of "sculpture" in the original statutory provision relating to copyright in sculptures, section 1 of the Sculpture Copyright Act 1814 . . I do not see why the word "sculpture" in section 3 of the Copyright Act 1956 should not receive its ordinary dictionary meaning except in so far as the scope of the word is extended by section 48(1) which provides that " 'sculpture' includes any cast or model made for the purposes of sculpture." The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines sculpture as the "Art of forming representations of objects etc or abstract designs in the round or in relief by chiselling stone, carving wood, modelling clay, casting metal, or similar processes; a work of sculpture," a definition . . in the textbook . . where it is suggested that: "Since copyright may subsist irrespective of artistic quality it would seem that, for example, carved wooden patterns intended for the purpose of casting mechanical parts in metal or plastic might well be susceptible of protection, although the point has not yet received much attention from practitioners."
Sculpture Copyright Act 1814 1
1 Citers


 
Saphena Computing Ltd -v- Allied Collection Agencies Ltd [1995] FSR 616
1995

Staughton LJ
Intellectual Property, Contract
The court faced a claim as regards an undeveloped computer system which was sold with bugs "warts and all". Held: The court spoke of expert evidence that in a bespoke system bugs were inevitable.
1 Citers


 
A & M Records Ltd -v- VCI [1995] EMLR 25
1995

Sir Mervyn Davies
Intellectual Property, media
Sir Mervyn Davies said: "However that may be, I am satisfied that Mr Ross was at all material times quite unaware of any activities of the plaintiffs being activities of a kind that he as owner of the copyright in the sound recordings could object to. It did not occur to Mr Ross that he had any right to copyright until it was explained to him about September 1994 that he might be the copyright owner. That being so I do not see how any estoppel can be raised against him or in turn against VCI. I do not see that Mr Ross acted unconscionably in failing to assert a right of which he was unaware."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Origins Natural Resources Inc -v- Origin Clothing Ltd [1995] FSR 280
1995

Jacobs J
Intellectual Property
Jacobs J considered the trade marks regulation of double registrations: "There is no provision of the Trade Marks Act 1938 which prevents the registration of a mark twice for the same goods by the same proprietor. There is no reason in public policy why that should not happen under the old Act, provided of course that the two registrations were held by the same proprietor. That was bound to be the case if the marks were associated.
The ... way in which it was said to be implicit under the old Act that two identical marks could not be registered for the same goods was under section 26. The argument was that a man could keep registering the same mark, thereby avoiding the effect of section 26(1)(b) (non-use for five years). Again it does not seem to me that that provision shows anything of the kind. If a man were to keep registering the same mark with no genuine intention of using it then he would lose his mark under section 26(1)(a) or (b). If, on the other hand, a man had registered a mark with a bona fide intention to use it and found himself unable to use it for a number of years so that the mark was removable under section 26(1)(b) but he still had genuine plans to use the mark then I see no reason why he should not apply again, thereby avoiding the effect of section 26(1)(b).
In practice for very many years many people have been applying for registered trade marks which do cover the same goods as earlier marks registered by them, the mark being the same in both cases. They have done this for the sensible reason that they wanted to upgrade a Part B registration to a Part A registration and sometimes simply because they put in marks with wider specifications of goods. No harm to the public interest in any way has resulted from their doing so."
Trade Marks Act 1938 26
1 Citers


 
Kitetechnology -v- Unicor GmbH Plastmaschinen [1995] FSR 765
1995


Torts - Other, Intellectual Property
It would not be correct to describe a infringement of breach of privacy as a tort.
1 Citers


 
Hellewell -v- Chief Constable of Derbyshire Gazette, 15 February 1995; Times, 13 January 1995; [1995] 1WLR 804; [1995] 4 All ER 473
13 Jan 1995
QBD
Laws J
Intellectual Property, Police, Media, Human Rights
The police were asked by shopkeepers concerned about shoplifting, for photographs of thieves so that the staff would recognise them. The police provided photographs including one of the claimant taken in custody. The traders were told only to show them to staff. Held: A duty of confidence could arise when the police photographed a suspect without his consent, but the photograph could be published if reasonably required for the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of alleged offences, or the apprehension of suspects unlawfully at large. The police could rely on the public interest defence to any action for breach of confidence. The police in disclosing the photograph acted entirely in good faith for the prevention or detection of crime and had distributed it only to persons who had reasonable need to make use of it. However "the term “reasonable” is fluid in its application and it is as impossible as it is undesirable to lay down anything like a lexicon of the circumstances that will amount to reasonable use." (Obiter:) "If someone with a telephoto lens were to take from a distance and with no authority a picture of another engaged in some private act, his subsequent disclosure of the photograph would, in my judgment, as surely amount to a breach of confidence as if he had found or stolen a letter or diary in which the act was recounted and proceeded to publish it. In such a case, the law would protect what might reasonably be called a right of privacy, although the name accorded to the cause of action would be breach of confidence. It is, of course, elementary that, in all such cases, a defence based on the public interest would be available."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Gerber Garment Technology Inc -v- Lectra Systems Ltd Ind Summary, 30 January 1995; [1995] RPC 383
30 Jan 1995
ChD
Jacob J
Intellectual Property, Damages
A prior art recital in a Patent application is strong but rebuttable evidence of the state of knowledge.
1 Citers


 
Northern & Shell Plc -v- Conde Nast Ind Summary, 13 February 1995; [1995] RPC 117
13 Feb 1995
ChD
Jacob J
Intellectual Property
A trade mark licensee cannot sue other licensees who had been properly authorised to use the Mark.
1 Citers


 
Volumatic Ltd -v- Myriad Technologies Ltd Unreported, 10 April 1995
10 Apr 1995
ChD
Sir John Vinelott
Intellectual Property
The court considered whether the protection given by the section extended to part only of a registered design: "The question is whether, when these features [must fit and must match] have been subtracted, there is anything left in which unregistered design right could be plausibly claimed. . . Literally construed the Act would allow design right to be claimed in the design of an insignificant part – a mere "twiddle", as it was put in argument. That cannot have been intended. It was accepted by Mr Onslow, who appeared for Volumatic, that to maintain a claim for infringement of the design of part of an article, the part copied must be visually significant."
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 213(6)
1 Citers



 
 Island Records Ltd -v- Tring International Plc and Another; ChD 12-Apr-1995 - Times, 28 April 1995; [1995] EWHC 8 (Ch); [1995] FSR 560; [1995] 3 All ER 444

 
 Radio Telefis Eirann & Itp Ltd -v- Commission of EU Supp Magill; ECJ 17-Apr-1995 - Times, 17 April 1995

 
 Brain -v- Ingledew Brown Benson & Garrett and Another; ChD 18-Apr-1995 - Ind Summary, 18 April 1995
 
Re Apps by Nv Konings Graanstkerij for Rectifications Nom McCormick Ind Summary, 24 April 1995
24 Apr 1995
ChD

Intellectual Property
Before a Trade Mark registrar, first hand hearsay may be admissible on an affidavit.
Civil Evidence Act 1968


 
 Beloit Technologies Inc and Another -v- Valmet Paper Machinery Inc and Another; ChD 12-May-1995 - Times, 12 May 1995; [1995] RPC 705
 
Kastner -v- Rizla Ltd and Another Times, 23 June 1995; [1995] RPC 585
23 Jun 1995
CA

Intellectual Property
Patent specification construction to be purposive- following 'Catnic'.
Patents Act 1977 - European Patents Convention 1973
1 Citers


 
Modus Vivendi pc -v- Keen (World Marketing Ltd) Unreported 5 July 1995
5 Jul 1995

Lightman J
Intellectual Property
The case concerned the sale of Ronson butane gas cans in China. Ronson's distributor in China introduced his own product (deceptively similar to Ronson's product) under the name "Purilite". Held: "Purilite until …November 1990 promoted further (albeit illegitimately) knowledge and acceptance in China of Ronson's get-up: the goodwill attached in law to Ronson, not the tortfeasor…."
1 Citers


 
Cala Homes (South) Ltd and others -v- Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1995] EWHC 7 (Ch); [1995] FSR 818
6 Jul 1995
ChD
Laddie J
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property, Contract
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had copied its house designs after a senior employee involved in creating the designs left and eventually came to work for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the copying was flagrant allowing additional damages. Held: Though some work had been outsourced, the employee remained the author, and his employer retained the copyright as his employer, and therefore infringement had occurred: "to have regard merely to who pushed the pen is too narrow a view of authorship. What is protected by copyright in a drawing or a literary work is more than just the skill of making marks on paper or some other medium. It is both the words or lines and the skill and effort involved in creating, selecting or gathering together the detailed concepts, data or emotions which those words or lines have fixed in some tangible form which is protected. It is wrong to think that only the person who carries out the mechanical act of fixation is an author."
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 97(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Smoothysigns and Another -v- Metro Products (Accessories and Leisure) Ltd Times, 04 August 1995
4 Aug 1995
ChD

Intellectual Property
Construction of Patent claim not to be altered by entry in body of specification.


 
 Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd -v- Beehive Spinning (A Firm); ChD 9-Aug-1995 - Times, 09 August 1995; [1995] RPC 683

 
 Coca-Cola Co and Another -v- Gilbey and Others; ChD 10-Oct-1995 - Times, 28 November 1995; Independent, 10 October 1995
 
The British Diabetic Association -v- the Diabetic Society and Others Times, 23 October 1995
23 Oct 1995
ChD

Intellectual Property
Use of name with 'Society' can be passing off because it is so similar to 'Association' where the remainder of the trading name is the same.

 
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc and Another -v- H N Norton & Co Ltd; Same -v- Penn Etc Times, 27 October 1995; Gazette, 15 December 1995; [1996] RPC 76; (1996) 19(1) IPD 19004; (1997) 33 BMLR 201; [1995] UKHL 14
26 Oct 1995
HL
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Intellectual Property
A patent for a substance which had been produced naturally before the application of the process was invalid. The patent was invalidated after the discovery that the effect was produced naturally from an acid metabolite. Patent infringement does not require that one should be aware that one is infringing: "whether or not a person is working [an] ... invention is an objective fact independent of what he knows or thinks about what he is doing . . ." Decisions of the Boards of Appeal on provisions of the UK Act intended to implement corresponding provisions of the EPC have "great persuasive authority".
Patents Act 1977 3
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
BASF Plc -v- CEP (UK) Plc Unreported, 26 October 1995
26 Oct 1995
ChD
Knox J
Intellectual Property
Section 10(3) does require proof that the use was such as was likely to cause confusion.
Trade Marks Act 1994 810(4)
1 Citers



 
 Cala Homes (South) Ltd and Others -v- Alfred Mcalpine Homes East Ltd; ChD 30-Oct-1995 - Ind Summary, 30 October 1995; [1995] FSR 818
 
Bravado Merchandising Services Ltd -v- Mainstream Publishing (Edinburgh) Ltd Times, 20 November 1995
20 Nov 1995
OHCS

Intellectual Property
Registered trade mark name was properly included in the title of a book about the name holder.
Trade Marks Act 1994 11-2-b

 
British-American Tobacco Company Ltd -v- The Netherlands Times, 11 December 1995; 19589/92; [1995] ECHR 46
20 Nov 1995
ECHR

Intellectual Property, Human Rights
The Netherlands patent appeal procedure was valid and not a denial of human rights.
Hudoc No violation of Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 13; No separate issue under P1-1
[ Bailii ] - [ ECHR ]
 
Practice Statement: Patents Court Procedure Ind Summary, 04 December 1995
4 Dec 1995
ChD

Intellectual Property
Patents court judges procedure for hearing summonses by telephone conference.

 
Wyko Group Plc and Others -v- Cooper Roller Bearings Co Ltd Times, 04 December 1995; [1996] FSR 126
4 Dec 1995
ChD
Ferris J
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
A court may not grant a declaratory relief anticipating facts which were not yet in being. There must be in existence of a real question in issue between the parties as to the legal consequences of existing facts. Declaratory relief could not be obtained against a person who had not asserted any right: a party should be allowed to choose his own proceedings at a time and manner of his own choosing and should not be brought into court by the opposing party to resist a claim for a declaration of non-liability.
1 Citers



 
 de Maudsley -v- Palumbo and Others; ChD 19-Dec-1995 - Times, 19 December 1995; [1996] FSR 447
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.