Category: Intellectual Property

Bonnier Media Limited v Smith and Kestrel Trading Corporation: SCS 1 Jul 2002

The defenders registered internet domain names. The claimants alleged an intended infringement of their trade marks, saying the defenders had a history of opening sites intended to deceive. The defenders who were resident in Greece said that the 1982 Act could not be used for a threatened delict, but only for a completed one.
Held: The procedure was available for a threatened delict. The difference between one threatened and one complete need not be substantial. Jurisdiction over the defendant was available where it could be seen that the web-site would be directed at the pursuers business. That was the case here.

Judges:

Lord Drummond Young

Citations:

Times 10-Jul-2002

Links:

ScotC

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Sch 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – 1-800 Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd CA 17-May-2001
When making a summary assessment of costs, the court should look primarily to the facts of the particular case before it. It would be proper to bear in mind its own experience of comparable cases. Having made that assessment, it was also proper to . .
Cited – Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters and Trade and Barrel Ltd ChD 25-Jul-2000
The court considered the nature of use in relation to goods under the 1994 Act, and the Directive: ‘It may well be that the concept of ‘use in relation to goods’ is different for differing purposes. Much may turn on the public conception of the use. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Intellectual Property, Jurisdiction

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.174193

Prosyscor Ltd v Netsweeper Inc and Others: IPEC 22 May 2019

Dispute about the ownership of an international patent application and national and regional applications derived from it. The invention claimed is a method of discriminating between requests to access a website.

Judges:

Judge Hacon

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1302 (IPEC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.639429

Secretary of State for Defence v Farrow System Ltd (Patent): IPO 23 Nov 2005

The Claimant submitted amended statements of case with its evidence-in-chief, the amended statements introducing two allegations of prior use. The Defendant objected to the admission of the amended statements in view of the lateness of the amendments and the difficulty in dealing with the prior use grounds. The Hearing Officer was satisfied that the new grounds had became apparent only during collation of the Claimants evidence and found no undue delay or lack of diligence. The public interest would not be served by refusing the amendments. It was accepted that there would inevitably be some detriment to the Defendant in that it would be obliged to respond to the amended grounds, but weighing all the factors the balance went to allowing the amendments. An order for costs was made in favour of the Defendant to compensate for the extra work involved in dealing with the amended statements of case.

Judges:

Mr P Back

Citations:

[2005] UKIntelP o30805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.456483

Cinpres Gas Injection Limited v Melea Limited: ChD 23 Nov 2006

The claimant sought to pursue its licence claim after its claim to a proprietary interest in the patent had been dismissed.
Held: The claim misunderstood the way section 37 worked. To have a claim to a license the license the claimant had to show some proprietary interest. The grant of a licence was not to be seen as a form of consolation prize. The Yeda Research case could not be read to say that such a jurisdiction must exist.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Mann

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2950 (Ch), Times 05-Dec-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd v Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and others CA 31-Jul-2006
The claimants sought to amend their claim which had previously been on the basis of a joint ownership, to one of sole ownership.
Held: The application for the amendment being made more han two years after the grant, the amendment could not be . .
See Also – Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd ChD 9-Oct-2006
The claimant had sought a declaration as to the ownership of a patent, and now said that a witness had procured his earlier judgment by perjury. The witness now said that he had formed his statement against a feeling of oppression by the threat of a . .

Cited by:

See Also – Cinpres Gas Injection Ltd v Melea Ltd CA 24-Jan-2008
A final judgment may be impugned for fraud. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.246982

Crane T/A Indigital Satellite Services v Sky In-Home Service Ltd and Another: ChD 26 Jan 2007

The Directive’s substantive provisions were modelled primarily on the provisions of German domestic law.

Judges:

Briggs J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 66 (Ch), [2007] 1 CLC 389

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Crane (T/A Indigital Satelite Services) v Sky In-Home Ltd and Another CA 3-Jul-2008
Arden LJ considered the principles to be applied when considering whether a party to civil litigation should be allowed to appeal a trial judge’s decision on the basis that a claim, which could have been brought before him but was not, would have . .
Cited – Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another QBD 3-Oct-2011
The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the . .
Cited – Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another QBD 3-Oct-2011
The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Agency

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.248251

Ultraframe UK Ltd v Clayton and others: ChD 14 Feb 2003

Laddie J said: ‘I have to resolve a dispute between the parties on the issue of costs following on from the determination of the preliminary issues ordered to be heard by His Honour Judge Behrens. It is difficult to summarise the complex multifaceted dispute which exists between the parties and in relation to which the determination of the preliminary issues arose. The issues I had to concern myself with related to the ownership of the design rights in the parts from which conservatories are made, whether a case of infringement by the defendants have been out and whether design rights subsisted. However this is just a part of what is really a very big and convoluted dispute. ‘

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 242 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Ultraframe UK Limited v Clayton, Fielding and Others ChD 3-Oct-2002
The claimants asserted infringement of their registered design rights in parts used in their double glazing and conservatory units. ‘Therefore it is possible for design right to subsist in the design of the part of the article which is not excluded . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.227063

Julius Samann Ltd and others v Tetrosyl Ltd: ChD 17 Mar 2006

The Trade Marks Act 1994 must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with the Directive, and the relevant provisions of the Directive conform to those of the Regulation. Kitchin J summarised the principles to be applied when testing for confusion of marks: ‘i) The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all the relevant factors. . ii) The matter must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods in issue, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect . . iii) In order to assess the degree of similarity between the marks concerned the court must determine the degree of visual, aural or conceptual similarity between them and, where appropriate, evaluate the importance to be attached to those different elements taking into account the nature of the goods in question and the circumstances in which they are marketed . iv) The visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must therefore be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of the marks in the mind of the average consumer plays a decisive role in the overall appreciation of the likelihood of confusion . . v) The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyse its various details . .vi) There is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier trade mark has a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the use that has been made of it . . vii) The average consumer rarely has the chance to make direct comparisons between marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect of them he has kept in his mind; further the average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods in question . . viii) Appreciation of the likelihood of confusion depends upon the degree of similarity between the goods. A lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods, and vice versa . . ix) Mere association in the sense that the later mark brings the earlier mark to mind, is not sufficient for the purposes of the assessment . . x) But the risk that the public might believe that the goods come from the same or economically linked undertakings does constitute a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of the section.’

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 529 (Ch), [2006] FSR 42

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (to approximate the laws of member state relating to trade marks), Trade Marks Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – D Jacobson and Sons Ltd v Globe Gb Ltd Globe Europe Sas Chd 25-Jan-2008
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendants of its ‘Gola’ trade mark designs. The defendant said the registration was invalid because the stripes on the shoes were not distincive being seen as part of the design of the shoe rather than as an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.239190

Sales v Stromberg and others: ChD 26 Jul 2005

The claimant sought damages alleging infringement of design right, breach of confidentiality and passing off. The claimants sold a system for purification of water.
Held: The situations behind the two sets of products were different. Products. The drawing of one design at issue was sufficiently precise to have protection. There was a high degree of similarity between the design and the eventual product of the defendant. Those products were infringing. As regards the other product the claims failed. The information had been imparted to the defendant under circumstances sufficient to establish a duty of confidence.

Judges:

Roger Wyand QC

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1624 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 213(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scholes Windows Ltd v Magnet Ltd CA 11-Apr-2001
The claimant sought damages for infringement in their unregistered design right in a part of a window. Copyright was accepted, but in the claim for unregistered design right, the respondent said the design was commonplace.
Held: The judge was . .
Cited – de Maudsley v Palumbo and Others ChD 19-Dec-1995
The protection of confidentiality could be granted to an idea only once it was particularised into a definite product or which was capable of being put into practice. In order to attract confidence an idea must (a) contain some significant element . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.229039

Clearsprings Management Ltd v Businesslinx Ltd and Another: ChD 14 Jul 2005

The parties disputed the ownership of copyrights in a computer software program.

Judges:

Christopher Floyd QC DHCJ

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1487 (Ch), [2006] FSR 3

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc PatC 18-Mar-1998
Contractor and Client Copyrights
The plaintiff had contributed a design for a system of classifying and selecting tracks to be played on a radio station. He did so under a consultancy contract.
Held: A Joint authorship claim required that the contributor had made some direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263697

Citibank Na v The Comptroller General of Patents: ChD 9 Jun 2006

Appeal against refusal of patent – invention related to a scheme, rule, or method, for doing business and/or a mathematical method – financial derivatives.

Judges:

Mann J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1676 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263670

K and L Ruppert Stiftung and Co. Handels-KG, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs): ECJ 12 Dec 2007

ECJ Community trade mark Opposition proceedings Application for the figurative mark CORPO LIVRE National and international word marks LIVRE Proof of use of the earlier marks submitted out of time.

Citations:

T-86/05, [2007] EUECJ T-86/05

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263467

Xentral v OHMI – Pages Jaunes (Pagesjaunes.Com): ECFI 13 Dec 2007

ECJ Community trade mark Opposition proceedings. Application for the Community word mark PAGESJAUNES.COM – Earlier national figurative mark LES PAGES JAUNES Domain name ‘pagesjaunes.com’ Relative grounds for refusal Likelihood of confusion Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Citations:

T-134/06, [2007] EUECJ T-134/06

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262924

Merlet and Another v Mothercare Public Ltd: CA 4 Nov 1985

The plaintiff asserted copyright in a ‘raincosy’ which she said had been copied by the defendants.

Judges:

Ackner, O’Connor, Slade LJJ

Citations:

[1985] EWCA Civ 19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd HL 1986
The claimant’s product was made from drawings. The drawings were protected as copyright artistic works. They were reproduced in a three dimensional form by the claimant’s own products. Someone who copied the claimant’s products indirectly copied the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262665

Thurgood v Coyle: ChD 5 Jul 2007

A construction company had become insolvent and unable to complete a development. The architects denied that the liquidator had the right to include in the sale of the site any right to use the drawings it had prepared under the standard JCT contract.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2696 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Construction

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261895

Frandsen and others v Bestnet Europe Ltd and others: ChD 25 Oct 2007

The defendants sought to strike out claims for breach of confidence brought by their former employers, saying that the claim was an abuse of process. The claimants said that the defendants had left their employment to set up a competing business in Denmark using confidential information wrongfully copied by them before leaving.
Held: On the papers, the court could not decide that the claimants had no basis for the claim, and could not be struck out without a proper hearing as vexatious.

Judges:

Roger Wyand QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2455 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260345

GFK v OHMI-Bus (Online Bus): ECFI 24 Nov 2005

ECJ Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark Online Bus – Earlier figurative trade mark composed of the word -BUS- and a figure made up of three interlaced triangles – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion -? Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

Citations:

T-135/04, [2005] EUECJ T-135/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.235304

Simonds Farsons Cisk v Ohmi-Spa Monopole (Kinji By Spa): ECFI 24 Nov 2005

ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for registration of a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element -KINJI by SPA- Earlier Community word mark KINNIE – Likelihood of confusion Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94.

Citations:

T-3/04, [2005] EUECJ T-3/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.235310

Double Bubble Blue (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 4 Sep 2018

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Likelihood of Confusion – State of the register
Revocation / Proof of Use – Variant forms of marks – use with matter added or subtracted

Judges:

Ms C Boucher

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o55018

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.631625

Brunswick (Trade Mark: Invalidity): IPO 24 Sep 2018

Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Devoid of character – slogans
Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Descriptiveness – geographical signs
Section 3(1) Descriptiveness / Distinctiveness – Customary in the language etc. – customary in the language

Judges:

Mrs T Perks

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o59418

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.631620

Dance Dance Dance (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 11 Sep 2018

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations

Judges:

Mrs L White

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o56518

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.631623

Chithambara (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 24 Sep 2018

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Identical marks
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Composite word and device marks

Judges:

Ms Leisa Davies

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o59318

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.631622

Handley Page v Butterworth (HM Inspector of Taxes): HL 8 Apr 1935

TC Income tax, Schedule D – Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors – Ex gratia award in respect of unpatented inventions – Ownership of amount awarded – Agency.

Citations:

[1935] UKHL TC – 19 – 328, (1935) 9 TC 328

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.559345

Michael Wayne Crabtree v Ralph Barclay Ross (Patent): IPO 1 Jul 2005

The parties having failed to settle their dispute on the basis of the finding in [2004] UKIntelP o18804 in respect of GB 9901474.8, PCT/GB00/00176*, GB 2363373 and corresponding foreign applications, the hearing officer considered the parties submissions on the form of order to be made and on costs. R had in the meantime commenced proceedings (currently stayed) in respect of a parallel family of applications and patents in C’s sole name (GB 2361909, PCT/US00/00887* and corresponding foreign applications), which had not been considered to be formally within the earlier proceedings.
The hearing officer took the view that the issues of entitlement and inventorship on the latter family had been sufficiently covered by the earlier proceedings to justify their inclusion in the order to be made. In respect of foreign applications and patents, specifically the US patents arising from each of the patent families, he did not consider it appropriate on the information available to go further than making a declaration in respect of the GB and PCT applications from which they derived. Noting that the Court of Appeal had specifically rejected a claim-by-claim approach to inventorship in Markem v Zipher [2005] EWCA Civ 267, the hearing officer proposed to make a declaration that C and R were the joint inventors of the non-uniform surface profiles in both patent families. The hearing officer also set out the core terms of an order allowing the parties to work the invention independently of each other and withdrawing the new proceedings initiated by R, but considered that he had nothing on which he could arrive at a suitable royalty rate for cross-licenses. A period was allowed for the parties to make submissions on further matters which appeared necessary to make the order effective. Costs were awarded on the standard scale.

Citations:

[2005] UKIntelP o18505

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.456378

York (Trade Mark: Revocation): IPO 1 Jul 2005

Following a hearing appointed to consider whether the registered proprietor’s evidence of use filed under Rule 31(2) was sufficient to discharge the onus on him, the Registrar’s Hearing Officer had ruled that it was not and had deemed the proprietor’s opposition to the revocation to be ended, under Rule 31(3) (see BL O/327/04). The registered proprietor appealed to the Appointed Person against this decision.
Having reviewed the evidence provided by the registered proprietor Mr Hobbs concluded that ‘taken as a whole (it) was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 31(2)’ and ‘the defence thereby, disclosed could be regarded to be contestable’. In that case ‘it was not open to the Hearing Officer to use Rule 31(3) either as a basis for sanctioning the (registered proprietor) for default . . . . . or as a basis for proceeding to a final determination of the application . . . . .. without following the adversarial procedure envisaged by Rules 31(4) to 31(10).’ The Hearing Officer had ‘gone further than envisaged by the decision of the Hearing Officer in the CARTE BLEUE case.’ Rule 31(3) ‘did not enable her to do so’.
The Hearing Officer’s decision was set aside.

Citations:

[2005] UKIntelP o19105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.456389

Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Evysio Medical Devices Ulc: PatC 21 Apr 2008

Patent claims – for revocation and in answer in infringement.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 800 (Ch), [2008] EWHC 800 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Brugger v Medic-Aid Ltd (No 2) ChD 1996
B alleged infringement by M of its patented nebulizer. M replied saying that the claims failed for obviousness. Features of the nebulizer were admittedly old and well known, but the claimant asserted a new mechanism which reduced the size of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.268007

Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd: PatC 16 Jan 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 154 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Regina v Coutts HL 19-Jul-2006
The defendant was convicted of murder. Evidence during the trial suggested a possibility of manslaughter, but neither the defence nor prosecution proposed the alternate verdict. The defendant now appealed saying that the judge had an independent . .
See Also – Markem Corporation and Another v Zipher Ltd CA 22-Mar-2005
A patent which was applied for as a result of a breach of confidence may be capable of giving the victim of the breach the benefit of an interest in the patent. In the UK at least the basis of an entitlement claim must be a breach of the claimant’s . .

Cited by:

Cited – Whaley and Another v Lord Advocate HL 28-Nov-2007
The House considered claims that the 2002 Act, which set out to make unawful the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unlawful, infringed the claimants’ human rights, in that it contravened international treaties requiring the support for traditional . .
See Also – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another PatC 25-Jun-2008
. .
See Also – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another PatC 1-Sep-2008
This judgment deals with the issue of the scope of the injunction to which Markem should be entitled in support of the undertaking given to HHJ Fysh QC. . .
See Also – Zipher Ltd v Markem Systems Ltd and Another CA 10-Feb-2009
In earlier proceedings, Zipher had given an undertaking not to pursue their claim over and above a certain level. The defendant now sought to hold them to that undertaking. The claimants replied that the undertaking had lapsed when that action had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261504

Meridian International Services Ltd v Richardson and others: ChD 18 Oct 2007

The claimant had contracted to finalise and update software written by the defendants. They claimed that the contract included an implied clause that the defendant’s copyright was assigned to them by the agreement.
Held: The claimant had not established the term it sought to imply.

Judges:

Ham QC J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2539 (Ch), [2007] Info TLR 139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc PatC 18-Mar-1998
Contractor and Client Copyrights
The plaintiff had contributed a design for a system of classifying and selecting tracks to be played on a radio station. He did so under a consultancy contract.
Held: A Joint authorship claim required that the contributor had made some direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Contract

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260348

Jules Rimet Cup Ltd v The Football Association Ltd.: ChD 18 Oct 2007

The parties disputed on preliminary issues the ownership of the rights in the trade mark ‘World Cup Willie’. The claimant had set out to register the mark, and the defendant gave notice of its intention to oppose. The claimant now alleged threat and unlawful interference in contractual relations. The defendant alleged copyright infringement in the drawing of the new World Cup Willie.
Held: Though the claimant had copied elements of the defendant’s drawing, there was no substantial copying such as to infringe. The defendant had not abandoned its intention to trade on the name, and there remained a residual goodwill in the name in 2005. The claimants knew of the residual goodwill in the name, and had made the application in bad faith.

Judges:

Roger Wyand QC

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2376 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 52, Copyright (Industrial Process and Excluded Articles) (No. 2) Order 1989 3, Copyright Act 1956 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Star Industrial Company Limited v Yap Kwee Kor trading as New Star Industrial Company PC 26-Jan-1976
(Singapore) The plaintiff Hong Kong company had manufactured toothbrushes and exported them to Singapore, for re-export to Malaysia and Indonesia, but with some local sales as well. Their characteristic get-up included the words ‘ACE BRAND’ and a . .
Cited – Gromax Plasticulture Ltd v Don and Low Nonwovens Ltd PatC 12-Jun-1998
The court set out tests of bad faith for applications for the registration of trade marks: ‘I shall not attempt to define bad faith in this context. Plainly it includes dishonesty and, as I would hold, includes also some dealings which fall short of . .
Cited – Ajit Weekly (Trade Mark: Invalidity) IPO 29-Dec-2005
Professor Annand set out the combined test of bad faith in a trade mark application: ‘Bad faith is to be judged according to the combined test of dishonesty for accessory liability to breach of trust set out by the majority of the House of Lords in . .
Cited – Barlow Clowes International Ltd and Another v Eurotrust International Ltd and others PC 10-Oct-2005
(Court of Appeal of the Isle of Man) Defendants appealed a finding of dishonest assistance in the activities of Barlow Clowes.
Held: The judge had been able to reach the conclusions on the basis of the evidence. The appeal of the deemster . .
Cited – Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co; Harrison’s Trade Mark Application (CHINAWHITE) CA 27-Jul-2004
The applicant had been an employee of the objector at their nightclub ‘Chinawhite’ and whose principal attraction was a cocktail of the same name. Employees signed a confidentiality agreement as to the recipe. Having left the employment, the . .
Cited – In re Corgi 1999
Geoffrey Hobbs QC said: ‘On the evidence before me I am prepared to accept that at the date of the application for registration of the later CORGI trade mark: (i) the applicant was the proprietor of a substantial and valuable goodwill built-up and . .
Cited – Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and Others HL 21-Mar-2002
Solicitors acted in a loan, giving an undertaking as to its application. In breach of that undertaking they released it to the borrower. The appellants appealed a finding of liability as contributors to the breach.
Held: ‘Money in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Torts – Other

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.260073

Novartis (Ag) v Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd: CA 18 Oct 2007

Novartis appeals the decision of Pumfrey J, [2006] EWHC 2506 (Pat) that Ivax’s ‘Equoral’ product does not infringe its UK patent No. 2,222,770 (the ‘Patent’). The Judge held the patent valid.

Judges:

Buxton LJ, Jacob LJ, Hughes LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 971

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Novartis Ag v Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd PatC 16-Oct-2006
Patents – action for infringement of two patents relating to the formulation of cyclosporin, which is a pharmaceutical of particular utility in producing immunosuppression in recipients of allogenic organ transplants. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259918

Procter and Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd: CA 10 Oct 2007

The claimant alleged infringement of its design right by the defendants’ Air-Wick product. The court considered the approach necessary in asking whether a European Community design had been infringed.
Held: Looking at an article for this purpose required a different viewpoint from checking for trade mark infringement. The purpose was different. The court should look through the eyes of an informed user, with a more discriminating view than the average consumer and who was to some extent familiar with design issues. In this case the similarities were of too general a nature. The judge should have looked for and stated what was the overall impression created by the article said to be infringing.
Jacob LJ said: ‘The most important things in a case about registered designs are:
(1) the registered design:
(2) the accused object; and
(3) the prior art.
nd the most important thing about each of these is what they look like.’ and ‘[t]he point of protecting a design is to protect that design as a design. So what matters is the overall impression created by it: will the user buy it, consider it or appreciate it for its individual design?’

Judges:

May LJ, Dyson LJ, Jacob LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 936, Times 17-Oct-2008, [2008] FSR 8, [2008] ECDR 3, [2008] Bus LR 801

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Procter and Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd ChD 13-Dec-2006
It was alleged that a Community registered design comprising a series of monochrome line drawings of a spray canister was infringed by a product called ‘Air Wick’. The claimant argued that, in light of the registration, only the product shapes . .

Cited by:

Approved – Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd CA 28-Feb-2014
The parties disputed an alleged infringement of a registered design in the Trunki, a child’s suitcase designed to be ridden on, and other infringements of copyright in the packaging. PMS now appealed on the issue of whether the defendant’s Kiddee . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.259768

Merck Genericos Produtos Farmaceuticos v Merck and Co Inc: ECJ 11 Sep 2007

ECJ (External Relations) Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Patents Minimum term of protection Legislation of a Member State providing for a lesser term Article 234 EC Jurisdiction of the Court Direct effect.

Citations:

[2007] ECR I-7001, C-431/05, [2007] EUECJ C-431/05

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259300

Tedesco (Justice And Home Affairs): ECJ 18 Jul 2007

ECJ Opinion – Cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the Evidence Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 Directive 2004/48/EC of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Procedure for conservation of evidence violations of intellectual property rights

Judges:

Kokott AG

Citations:

C-175/06, [2007] EUECJ C-175/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.259236

Arrow Generics Ltd and Another v Merck and Co, Inc: PatC 31 Jul 2007

The court considered it arguable that it had power properly to grant declarations that a product was old or obvious in patent law terms at a particular date.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1900 (Pat), [2007] FSR 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258670

Alcon v OHMI-Biofarma (Travatan): ECFI 22 Sep 2005

Europa Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Earlier national word mark TRIVASTAN – Application for Community word mark TRAVATAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Citations:

T-130/03, [2005] EUECJ T-130/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.230337

The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Sports Information Services Ltd: CA 9 Oct 2020

The court looked at the limitations: (1) the legal protection of sports data and other information which is not subject to traditional intellectual property rights; (2) the scope of an action under the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence or misuse of confidential information; and (3) the nature of the economic tort known as unlawful means conspiracy.
The claimant provided live racing data to race courses. SIS had previously contract to provide similar data, but had lost that right by expiry. The claimant appealed from rejection of its assertion that the continued supply if such data to race courses was un unlawful conspiracy to obstruct its own contract.

Judges:

Lewison, Arnold, Phillips LJJ

Citations:

[2020] EWCA Civ 1300, [2020] WLR(D) 543

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, WLRD, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Appeal from (reversed) – The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and Others ChD 8-May-2019
Actions concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants’ rights in respect of data relating to horseracing. The claimant had provided horse race betting odds (Betting shows) to race course owners. A rival company had provided similar data to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Torts – Other

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.654548

KIDS4KIDS (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 15 Oct 2018

Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Distinctive and dominant components
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Treatment of descriptive / allusive elements
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Particular visual / aural / conceptual considerations
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Conceptual distinctions
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Earlier Trade Marks – Imperfect recollection
Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) Dilution Cases – Reputation
Section 5(4) Earlier Rights – Passing off (Issues arising from Registry proceedings)

Judges:

Mrs L White

Citations:

[2018] UKIntelP o64618

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.631679

The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd and Others: ChD 8 May 2019

Actions concerning the alleged infringement of the claimants’ rights in respect of data relating to horseracing. The claimant had provided horse race betting odds (Betting shows) to race course owners. A rival company had provided similar data to bookmakers in way which, the claimant said undermined its contract in a conspiracy to injure the claimant by unlawful means.
Held: The claim failed.

Judges:

Zacaroli J

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1156 (Ch), [2019] WLR(D) 492, [2019] 3 WLR 779, [2020] Ch 289

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .

Cited by:

Appeal from (reversed) – The Racing Partnership Ltd and Others v Sports Information Services Ltd CA 9-Oct-2020
The court looked at the limitations: (1) the legal protection of sports data and other information which is not subject to traditional intellectual property rights; (2) the scope of an action under the equitable doctrine of breach of confidence or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.638192

Develey v OHIM: ECJ 25 Oct 2007

ECJ Appeal Community trade mark – Three-dimensional mark Shape of a plastic bottle – Refusal to register – Absolute grounds for refusal Lack of distinctive character – Earlier national trade mark Paris Convention TRIPs Agreement Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Citations:

C-238/06, [2007] EUECJ C-238/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.261340

Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd: PatC 3 May 2006

The claimant sought damages alleging patent infringement. The defendant responded by saying that the patent was invalid as a scheme, rule or method for doing business as such.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 997 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Patent Act 1977 1

Cited by:

Appeal from – Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others, In re Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal Macrossan Rev 1 CA 27-Oct-2006
In each case it was said that the requested patent concerned an invention consisting of a computer program, and was not therefore an invention and was unpatentable. In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258186

Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S (Costs): PatC 27 Jun 2007

The parties disputed the patentability of an anti-depressant drug Citalopram (Prozac).
Held: the claims were invalid for insufficiency.

Judges:

Kitchin J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1606 (Pat), [2007] RPC 729

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1 2

Citing:

Applied – Biogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .

Cited by:

Appeal From – H Lundbeck A/S v Generics (UK) Ltd and others CA 10-Apr-2008
The court heard an appeal against a finding that a patent for a chemical compound was invalid for insufficiency.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
Enough information to ‘work the invention’ meant in order to make the product. . .
At First Instance – Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S HL 25-Feb-2009
Patent properly granted
The House considered the patentability of a chemical product, citalopram made up of two enantiomers, as opposed to the process of its creation, questioning whether it could be new or was insufficient within the 1977 Act.
Held: The appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Costs

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258181

Mulhens v OHMI – Minoronzoni (Tosca Blu): ECFI 11 Jul 2007

ECJ Community trade mark – Opposition procedure Application for figurative Community trade mark TOSCA BLU Earlier national word mark TOSCA Relative grounds for refusal Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Citations:

T-150/04, [2007] EUECJ T-150/04

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation (EC) No 40/94

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258203

L’Oreal SA v OHIM, Revlon (Switzerland) SA intervening: ECJ 27 Apr 2006

The court considered what would amount to similarity beween two trade mark signs.
Held: So far as concerns the assessment of similarity, what must be concentrated on is the perception of the relevant public. As to a complex mark, that the extent of the distinctiveness of an element of a complex mark will be a guiding factor in determining whether such distinctiveness will dominate the overall impression conveyed by that mark, irrespective of the assessment of the similarity of the two signs. ‘It follows that the distinctive character of the earlier mark cannot have the significance which the applicant argues it should be given in the comparison of the signs in question, as it is not a factor which influences the perception which the consumer has of the similarity of the signs.’
The court identify the relevant types of injury against which a trade mark provides protection: (a) detriment to the distinctive character of the registered mark (‘dilution’ or a weakening of the registered mark’s ability to identify the services as those of the proprietor of the mark): or
(b) detriment to the repute of the mark (‘tarnishment’ which reduces the power of attraction of the registered mark because it has a negative impact on the image of the registered mark): or
(c) taking an unfair advantage (sometimes called ‘free riding’ or an exploitation of the reputation of the registered mark).

Citations:

C-235/05, [2006] EUECJ C-235/05, [2006] ECR I-57

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc ChD 29-Jun-2007
Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted . .
Cited – Lewis v Client Connection Ltd ChD 6-Jul-2011
The claimant alleged infringement of his registered trade marks ‘Money Saving Expert’ and associated terms. The defendant operated a service trading as ‘Money Claiming Expert’. Both services included advising those who might wish to claim refunds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254376

Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc: ChD 29 Jun 2007

Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted registration of esure’s trade mark. Esure now appealed a ruling against it’s mark.
Held: Whether there was a similarity could only be decided depends upon why the question is being asked. The threshold for similarity: ‘is arrived at as follows. First, overall impressions of the rival marks are formed, paying full regard to all the requirements of the autonomous concept of 4(1)(b) similarity. Next one has to have in mind the types of confusion which are then relevant, namely those identified in Sabel. Then the threshold question arises: are those overall impressions such that one can reasonably say that a likelihood of confusion could not thereby be created? ‘

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1557 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Marks Act 1994, First Council Directive 89/1004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton Television Ltd and Another CA 7-Jan-1999
The defendant was accused of infringing copyright in a TV programme relating to the pregnancy of a woman with eight foetuses. The defendant claimed fair dealing, but that defence was rejected by the trial judge.
Held: The decision was . .
Cited – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited – Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark CA 28-May-2002
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was . .
Cited – Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd ChD 24-Jan-2007
Both parties used the name ‘Elle’ in their respective products, a women’s magazine, and handknitting yarns. They disputed the registration of a trade mark for the latter in the UK.
Held: The court endorsed the continuing applicabiity of the . .
Cited – Piglowska v Piglowski HL 24-Jun-1999
No Presumption of House for both Parties
When looking to the needs of parties in a divorce, there is no presumption that both parties are to be left able to purchase alternative homes. The order of sub-clauses in the Act implies nothing as to their relative importance. Courts should be . .
Mentioned – British Sugar plc v James Robertson and Sons Ltd 1996
Use ‘in the course of trade’ means use by way of business and does not just mean use as a trade mark. . .
Cited – Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport ECJ 11-Nov-1997
The test of whether a sign is confusing is how the use of the sign would be perceived by the average consumer of the type of goods in question. ‘The likelihood of confusion must therefore be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors . .
Cited – Intel Corporation v Sihra ChD 2003
The court considered the observations of Pumfrey J in the Chrysler case as requiring proof of real future unfair advantage or detriment and not merely risk, and emphasised both the need for a causal connection between similarity on the one hand and . .
Cited – Valucci Designs Ltd v IPC Magazines 22-Sep-2000
The parties disputed the validity of registrations of Trade Marks for the word ‘Loaded’.
Held: This was a case of ‘non-confusing’ uses. . .
Cited – Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer v Klijsen Handel ECJ 22-Jun-1999
ECJ In accordance with the division of functions provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC), the role of the Court of Justice is limited to providing the national court with the guidance on . .
Cited – Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG ECJ 22-Jun-2000
The reputation of a trade mark does not give grounds for presuming a likelihood of confusion simply because of a likelihood of association in the strict sense.
Europa Article 5(1)(b) of First Directive . .
Cited – Vedial v OHMI, France Distribution ECJ 12-Oct-2004
Europa Community trade mark – Review procedures – Review before the Community Courts – Procedural role of the Office – Opposition proceedings – No power to alter the terms of the dispute before the Court of First . .
Cited – O2 Holdings Ltd and Another v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd ChD 11-Mar-2005
The idea of the ‘average consumer’, the arbiter of similarity in trade mark disputes, is a legal construct which tends to emphasise that similarity is an autonomous concept of European law. Similarity and likelihood of confusion are intimately bound . .
Cited – L’Oreal Sa and others v Bellure NV and others ChD 4-Oct-2006
The claimant alleged that the defendants had been importing copies of their perfumes. The products were not counterfeits, but ‘smell-alikes’. The defendants’ packaging and naming was used to suggest which perfume it resembled.
Held: The . .
Cited – Soffass v OHMI-Sodipan (Nicky) ECFI 23-Nov-2005
ECFI Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark containing the verbal element -‘NICKY’ – Earlier national figurative marks containing the verbal element – ‘NOKY’ – . .
Cited – Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd ChD 24-Jan-2007
Both parties used the name ‘Elle’ in their respective products, a women’s magazine, and handknitting yarns. They disputed the registration of a trade mark for the latter in the UK.
Held: The court endorsed the continuing applicabiity of the . .
Cited – L’Oreal SA v OHIM, Revlon (Switzerland) SA intervening ECJ 27-Apr-2006
The court considered what would amount to similarity beween two trade mark signs.
Held: So far as concerns the assessment of similarity, what must be concentrated on is the perception of the relevant public. As to a complex mark, that the . .
Cited – Ruiz-Picasso and Others v OHIM and DaimlerChrysler AG ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 -? Likelihood of confusion – Word mark PICARO – Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark PICASSO.
Adopting . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance plc CA 23-Jul-2008
Where in a claim for passing off, evidence from a consumer survey was to be required, it was incumbent on the parties to ensure that such a survey was carried out well in advance to make sure that it was available for the trial. An expert’s skills . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253763

Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and Another: PatC 15 Jun 2007

So far as patents are concerned, there is a rebuttable presumption in favour of staying English proceedings over EPO proceedings. This was an issue which might deserve consideration by the Court of Appeal.

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1416 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Kitfix Swallow Group Ltd v Great Gizmos Ltd ChD 22-Nov-2007
The defendant sought a stay of the proceedings for trade mark infringement to allow an application at OHMI for the revocation of the trade mark to be decided.
Held: The court should be cautious before applying practice on patents where the . .
Appeal from – Glaxo Group Ltd v Genentech Inc and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
The validity of a patent was challenged at the same time in both UK and European courts. Mummery LJ discussed the inherent consequences of a race between the jurisdictions: ‘the possibility of the duplication of proceedings contesting the validity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253475

Sherwin-Williams v OHMI (Twist and Pour): ECFI 12 Jun 2007

ECJ Community trade mark Application for Community word mark TWIST and POUR Absolute ground for refusal of registration Mark devoid of distinctive character Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

Citations:

T-190/05, [2007] EUECJ T-190/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253453

Budejovicky Budvar v OHMI- Anheuser-Busch (Budweiser): ECFI 12 Jun 2007

ECFI Community trade mark Opposition proceedings Application for a Community figurative trade mark including the terms ‘AB’, ‘genuine’, ‘Budweiser’, ‘king of beers’ Earlier international word mark BUDWEISER Appellations of origin registered under the Lisbon Agreement Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Partial acceptance and partial rejection of the opposition.

Citations:

T-57/04, [2007] EUECJ T-57/04

Links:

Bailii

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253449

Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd: ECJ 6 Apr 2006

Opinion – 1. In the present case the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) seeks further guidance from the Court of Justice on the effect of the latter’s judgment in Boehringer Ingelheim and Others (‘Boehringer I’). (2) That case concerned the circumstances in which a trade mark owner may rely on his trade mark rights to prevent a parallel importer who has repackaged products bearing the trade mark from marketing those products.
2. In the judgment of the Court of Appeal which led up to the order for reference, Lord Justice Jacob said: ‘Sometimes I think the law may be losing a sense of reality in this area – we are, after all, only considering the use of the owner’s trade mark for his goods in perfect condition. The pickle the law has got into would, I think, astonish the average consumer.’
3. I agree. It seems to me that after 30 years of case-law on the repackaging of pharmaceutical products it should be possible to distil sufficient principles to enable national courts to apply the law to the constantly replayed litigation between manufacturers and parallel importers. I will attempt to articulate such principles in this Opinion. I would then hope that national courts will play their part robustly in applying the principles to the facts before them without further requests to fine-tune the principles. Every judge knows that ingenious lawyers can always find a reason why a given proposition does or does not apply to their client’s situation. It should not however in my view be for the Court of Justice to adjudicate on such detail for evermore. (3)

Judges:

Sharpston AG

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ C-348/04

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – L’Oreal Sa and Others v Ebay International Ag and Others ChD 22-May-2009
The court was asked as to whether the on-line marketplace site defendant was liable for trade mark infringements by those advertising goods on the web-site.
Held: The ECJ had not yet clarified the law on accessory liability in trade mark . .
See also – Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd ECJ 26-Apr-2007
ECJ (Free Movement of Goods) Industrial and commercial property – Trade mark rights – Pharmaceutical products – Parallel imports – Repackaging of the product bearing the trade mark. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251860

Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v OHIM and Fmg Textiles (Anciennement Marine Enterprise Projects): ECJ 29 Mar 2007

ECJ Appeal Community trade mark – Figurative mark ‘Bainbridge’ Opposition by the proprietor of national word, figurative and three-dimensional marks including the word ‘Bridge’ Rejection of the opposition Concepts of ‘defensive trade mark registrations’ and ‘families’ or ‘series’ of trade marks.

Citations:

C-234/06, [2007] EUECJ C-234/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:514, [2007] ECR I-7333

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251129

Leofelis Sa and Another v Lonsdale Sports Ltd 7 Ors: ChD 8 Mar 2007

Judges:

Evans Lombe J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 451 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Phones 4U Ltd v EE Ltd ComC 16-Jan-2018
The parties contracted for the marketing of contracts for the marketing of the defendant’s mobile phone contracts. On the claimant entering administration, the defendant exercised a clause in their contract to terminate the contract. The claimant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250021

Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd and others: CA 14 Mar 2007

The defendant appealed against a finding of copyright infringement in a computer game.
Held: The appeal failed. The court must identify the artistic work relied upon and then decide whether it has been reproduced by copying of the work as a whole or of any substantial part of it. ”Graphic work’ is defined as including all the types of thing specified in s.4(2) which all have this in common, namely that they are static, non-moving. A series of drawings is a series of graphic works, not a single graphic work in itself.’
There was no frame by frame copying, and the first claim failed. Not all of the skill which goes into a copyright work is protected for example the skill involved in creating an invention which is then described in a literary work. An idea consisting of a combination of ideas is still just an idea in a computer program as in any other copyright work.
‘Mr Howe submitted that if the decision below is upheld there is no effective protection for games against copying of the game where a party copies the rules of a game but not its graphics. Mr Carr submitted that that not all things are covered by copyright, that most if not every work is, to some extent, influenced or derived from other works. So it is very important that copyright is not allowed to intervene to stifle the creation of works that are actually very different, as the individual games are here.
I agree with Mr Carr. If protection for such general ideas as are relied on here were conferred by the law, copyright would become an instrument of oppression rather than the incentive for creation which it is intended to be. Protection would have moved to cover works merely inspired by others, to ideas themselves. ‘

Judges:

Jacob LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 219, [2007] Bus LR 1032

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 3(1) 16(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Cited – LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd HL 3-Jan-1979
Access and Similarity base proof of Copying
Copyright is intended to protect one person against his work being copied by another. One person must not be permitted to appropriate the result of another’s labour; it is for the plaintiff to establish and prove as a matter of fact that copying has . .
Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Cited – Ibcos Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd ChD 1994
In cases of claimed copyright infringement, it is not the function of the expert to decide the question of substantiality. In cases of simple visual comparison the court can and should do the visual comparison for itself. A distinction between the . .
Cited – Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (Trading As Washington DC) HL 28-Nov-2000
Copyright Claim: Was it Copied, and How Much?
The claimant sought to enforce its copyright in artwork for a fabric design Ixia, saying the defendant’s design Marguerite infringed that copyright. Two issues faced the House. Just what had been copied and if any, then did this amount amount to the . .
Cited – Schieving-Nijstad VOF and Others v Groeneveld ECJ 13-Sep-2001
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Netherlands. Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation – Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement – Interpretation – Direct effect – . .
Cited – Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (Uk) Ltd CA 8-Mar-2006
Jacob LJ: In the context of construing an international treaty by reference to the travaux preparatoires to find a definite legal intention Lord Steyn said: ‘Only a bull’s-eye counts’ (Effort Shipping v Linden Management [1988] AC 605 at 625). Much . .
Cited – Effort Shipping Company Ltd v Linden Management Sa and others (The Glannis Nk) HL 22-Jan-1998
A ship’s cargo can be held to be dangerous, and the shipper liable for anything which was more than an obvious physical danger. Such wider danger includes beetle infestation of a crop cargo. Lord Steyn said:’I would be quite prepared, in an . .
Cited – Navitaire Inc v Easyjet Airline Co and Another ChD 30-Jul-2004
The claimant alleged infringement of its copyright in a software system which dealt with airline reservations. It was not said that any code had been copied, but merely that an express requirement of the defendant ordering the system was that it . .
At First Instance – Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd and others ChD 20-Jan-2006
The claimant alleged copyright infringement in respect of computer games in the coin operated video market. It was said not that the games copied bitmap graphics, but rather the composite frames which appeared on the screen.
Held: The games . .

Cited by:

Cited – Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others ChD 27-Jul-2010
The claimant alleged that the proposal for a game show submitted by him had been used by the various defendants. He alleged breaches of copyright and of confidence. Application was now made to strike out the claim. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.250013

Cappellini and Bloomberg, Re: PatC 13 Mar 2007

The applicants appealed rejection of their applications for patents. The comptroller-general had said that patents were in respect of computer programs excluded from registration.
Held: The appeals failed. There was no relevant technical effect in merely moving vehicles and their cargos around according to a routing algorithm.

Judges:

Pumfrey J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 476 (Pat)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Vicom/Computer-related invention EPOBA 1987
The claimant sought a patent claiming a method for the digital processing of images and an associated apparatus (which might be a computer) for implementing the method.
Held: The claims were not to a computer program as such: ‘Generally . .
Cited – Merrill Lynch’s Application CA 1989
The invention in this case was an improved ‘data processing system for making a trading market in at least one security in which the system proprietor is acting as principal.’
Held: More than one exclusion can be in play in relation to the . .
Cited – In Re Patent Application No 9204959 by Fujitsu Ltd CA 14-Mar-1997
A computer program modelling a crystal structure is not patentable; it was not a hardware function, and software is not capable of protection under Patents law. Aldous LJ repeated his concern at the so called ‘technical contribution test’ for . .
Appeal from – CFPH LLC, Patent Applications By PatC 21-Jul-2005
In the context of deciding as to the patentability the use of the description ‘technical’ was ‘a useful servant but a dangerous master’. Peter Prescott QC discussed the importance of being clear as to the meaning of an ‘invention’ saying: ‘does it . .
Cited – Shopalotto.Com Ltd, Re Patent Application Gb 0017772.5 PatC 7-Nov-2005
. .
Reasoning disapproved – Pension Benefits EPOBA 2000
The applicant sought a European patent for a method of calculating and controlling pensions benefits. The claim was ‘1. A method of controlling a pension benefits program by administering at least one subscriber employer account on behalf of each . .
Cited – Research In Motion UK Ltd v Inpro Licensing Sarl PatC 2-Feb-2006
The court should incline towards patentability in the case of computer programs: ‘I am anxious that these exclusions are not given too wide a scope. All modern industry depends upon programmed computers, and one must be astute not to defeat patents . .

Cited by:

Cited – Kapur v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks PatC 10-Apr-2008
The applicant sought patents for systems of document management. The applications had been rejected as being for computer programs as such.
Held: The exclusion from protection created by the section was to be construed narrowly. In the absence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249971

Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc: CA 2 Mar 2007

The claimant designed games software and complained of infringements by the defendant of licensing agreements by failing to allow audits as required.
Held: The defendant should be allowed to be heard on the standard practices for management of payment of software royalties. The defendant’s appeal would be allowed to that extent only.

Judges:

Chadwick, Scott Baker, Thomas LJJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 170, [2007] BusLR D34

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others CA 13-Jul-2005
The claimant appealed refusal of his claim for inducing a breach of contract against the sixth defendant. It said that an intention to disturb a contract could be inferred.
Held: A mere recklessness as to whether contractual rights were . .
Cited – Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc ChD 1-Nov-2005
The claimant owned the copyright in several successful computer games. He had granted licenses for the use of the software, which licences were assigned to the defendants. Disputes arose as to the calculation of royalty payments, and the claimant . .
Cited – Aylwen v Taylor Joynson Garrett CA 19-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages for negligence against solicitors for failing to complete a purchase and to keep her informed of all relevant matters. She sought damages for the loss of the profit she might have made had she purchased the property and . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005
The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
Cited – Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd and others CA 21-Jan-1999
An English court does not have to refuse an application which sought to apply a foreign copyright law in a claim based on acts committed abroad on the basis that not actionable here. Such restrictions applicable to land actions only: ‘It is, we . .
Cited – Electra Private Equity Partners (a Limited Partnership) and others v KPMG Peat Marwick (a Firm) and others CA 23-Apr-1999
In interlocutory appeals some relaxation of the strictness of the conditions set down in Ladd v Marshall might be appropriate, according to the nature of the interlocutory hearing and the individual circumstances of the case. That would particularly . .
Cited – The Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond and Others (No 5) CA 11-Apr-2001
When looking at an application to strike out a claim, the normal ‘balance of probabilities’ standard of proof did not apply. It was the court’s task to assess whether, even if supplemented by evidence at trial, the claimant’s claim was bound to fail . .

Cited by:

Cited – VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp and Others SC 6-Feb-2013
The claimant bank said that it had been induced to create very substantial lending facilities by fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants. They now appealed against findings that England was not clearly or distinctly the appropriate forum for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249373

Sandisk Corporation v Koninklijke Philips Electronics Nv and others: ChD 27 Feb 2007

The claimant sought damages for an alleged abuse of dominant market position by the defendants in its patent licensing. The defendant denied that the court had jurisdiction.
Held: An English court would have jurisdiction in such a case ony if the originating acts occurred here, of the damages substantially happened here.

Judges:

Pumfrey J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 332 (Ch), Times 27-Feb-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 81 82

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Jurisdiction, European

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.249239

Chappell and Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd: HL 18 Jun 1959

The defendants sought to rely on section 8 in defence to a claim for copyright infringement. They had manufactured and sold recordings of a work whose copyright was owned by the plaintiffs.They had given notice but had been told that the distribution as a sales promotion for chocolate was not retail sale within the section.
Held: It was a retail sale: ‘It is a sale to a consuming member of the public, and I know of no other factor which distinguishes a retail sale from other sales. ‘ The issue as whether the price was an ‘ordinary retal selling price’ and whether it is contended that . . the sale ‘ bears no resemblance at all to the transaction to which . . the section is pointing ‘, or that the three wrappers form part of the selling price and are incapable of valuation. Nor is there any need to take what, with respect, I think is a somewhat artificial view of a simple transaction. What can be easier than for a manufacturer to limit his sales to those members of the public who fufil the qualification of being this or doing that? It may be assumed that the manufacturer’s motive is his own advantage. It is possible that he achieves his object. But that does not mean that the sale is not a retail sale to which the section applies or that the ordinary retail selling price is not the price at which the record is ordinarily sold, in this case 1s. 6d.’

Judges:

Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid, Lord Tucker, Lord Keith of Avonholm, Lord Somervell of Harrow

Citations:

[1959] UKHL 1, [1960] AC 87

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Copyright Act 1956 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Consumer

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248534

Research In Motion UK Ltd v Inpro Licensing Sarl: CA 7 Feb 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 51

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Research In Motion UK Ltd v Inpro Licensing Sarl PatC 2-Feb-2006
The court should incline towards patentability in the case of computer programs: ‘I am anxious that these exclusions are not given too wide a scope. All modern industry depends upon programmed computers, and one must be astute not to defeat patents . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248386

Hachette Filipacchi Presse Sa v S Aprotex International (Proprietary) Ltd: ChD 24 Jan 2007

Both parties used the name ‘Elle’ in their respective products, a women’s magazine, and handknitting yarns. They disputed the registration of a trade mark for the latter in the UK.
Held: The court endorsed the continuing applicabiity of the guidelines in Reef when a court was asked to upset a decision of a lower but specialist tribunal.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Morritt C

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 63 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Trade Marks (Proof of Use etc) Regulations 2004, Trade Marks Act 1994 5(2) 5(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Endorsed – Bessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark CA 28-May-2002
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was . .

Cited by:

Cited – Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc ChD 29-Jun-2007
Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted . .
Cited – Esure Insurance Ltd v Direct Line Insurance Plc ChD 29-Jun-2007
Both companies sold motor insurance products at a distance and used as logos and symbols either a telephone or a computer mouse, in each case on wheels. Direct line claimed the use of the mouse by esure infringed its own trademarks, and resisted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248252

Calavo Growers v OHMI- Calvo Sanz (Calvo): ECFI 16 Jan 2007

ECJ Community trade mark Opposition proceedings Application for figurative mark CALVO Earlier Community word mark CALAVO Admissibility of the opposition Grounds of the opposition lodged in a language other than the language of the proceedings Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 Rule 20(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95.

Citations:

T-53/05, [2007] EUECJ T-53/05

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247901

Procter and Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd: ChD 13 Dec 2006

It was alleged that a Community registered design comprising a series of monochrome line drawings of a spray canister was infringed by a product called ‘Air Wick’. The claimant argued that, in light of the registration, only the product shapes should be compared. The defendant responded that the correct comparator was the defendant’s product as a whole, including its colour. Underpinning these rival contentions were two related issues, namely the scope of protection of the design and how the comparison should be carried out.
Held:
Protection only extended to those aspects of the design which were depicted: ‘ If a design passes these two tests, it is registered as a Community design. The form of the registration derives from the representation included in the application under Article 36. The definition of ‘design’ is that it is the appearance of the whole or part of a product. Whether it is the whole of the product or only part of the product depends, in my judgment, on what is depicted in the application for registration. In the case of a monochrome line drawing, what is protected is likely to be the shape or contours of the product. Although the definition extends to colours and materials, if they are not depicted, they will not be protected. By the same token, if the registered design depicts only part of a product, it is only that part that will be protected. It must be noted that although the applicant is required to identify the products to which his design will be applied, the scope of the protection in that respect is not limited by that: Article 36.6. This means, as both Mr Carr QC and Mr Wyand QC agreed, that if a design is registered for, say, an aerosol, it could be infringed by, say, a vase.’
As to the second issue, Lewison J rejected the submission that he should take into account the colours and graphics on the Air Wick when comparing it with the registered design:
‘The registration must, in my judgment, be the yardstick by which infringement is to be judged. The registration holder is entitled to choose the level of generality at which his design is to be considered. If he chooses too general a level, his design may be invalidated by prior art. If he chooses too specific a level he may not be protected against similar designs. But in my judgment to allow features that are not the subject-matter of the registration to play a part in the assessment of the overall impression would unduly restrict the scope of protection. This conclusion is, to some extent, supported by Russell-Clarke and Howe on Industrial Designs (7th ed) para 2-20 in which the editor/author says:
‘Under the new EC harmonised law, there seems no reason why the design of the chair back cannot be registered by itself. In practice, this would be achieved by filing a representation which portrays only the chair back and does not portray the rest of the chair. This would mean that when it came to infringement, only the back of the defendant’s chair would be compared with the registration and it would be irrelevant how different or similar, for example, the legs of the defendant’s chair are to the design of the proprietor’s own products on the market.’
There is nothing in the registered Community design in the present case that limits the colours. It seems to me therefore, that if one does not eliminate colour from the alleged infringement, the practical effect of not claiming a colour would be to limit the scope of protection to the colour white. But that would defeat the purpose of not claiming a colour (or it might lead applications for registration of a particularly distinctive shape to claim all conceivable colours).’
He then #considered the position on the basis contended for by the defendant:
‘ Mr Carr asked me to record what my conclusion would have been if I had been of the view that the colours and graphics of the Air Wick canister had to be taken into account in making the comparison.M
The predominant colour of the Air Wick canister is white. If I compare the Air Wick product with the Febreze product, the differences are not enlarged by the use of colour. Both have a predominantly white container, and both have a bluish pastel top. But that is not the comparison that Mr Carr says I should make. He wants to compare the coloured Air Wick product with the colourless registered design.
The contrast (some might say clash) between the blue pastel top and the green band immediately below the junction between the top and the canister in the Air Wick product does accentuate the difference between the two parts of the aerosol. It leads to Mr Treeby’s conclusion that the Air Wick design is a standard canister with a new top stuck on top. However, it still seems to me that the overall impression is formed by the distinctive shape of the registered design and the Air Wick product. I would not have come to a different conclusion if I had made the artificial comparison that Mr Carr urges.’

Judges:

Lewison J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3154 (Ch), [2007] ECDR 4, [2007] FSR 13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Procter and Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd CA 10-Oct-2007
The claimant alleged infringement of its design right by the defendants’ Air-Wick product. The court considered the approach necessary in asking whether a European Community design had been infringed.
Held: Looking at an article for this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247332

Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others: CA 15 Dec 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 1715

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Halliburton Energy Services, Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others PatC 21-Jul-2005
A claim was made for a method of design in which certain calculations were to be carried out recursively, modifying the results each time until a particular criterion was satisfied. Though the method was susceptible of solution by computer, but the . .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Inc and others Patc 9-Sep-2004
. .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd Patc 8-Nov-2004
. .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services, Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others PatC 21-Jul-2005
A claim was made for a method of design in which certain calculations were to be carried out recursively, modifying the results each time until a particular criterion was satisfied. Though the method was susceptible of solution by computer, but the . .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others CA 21-Feb-2006
. .
See Also – Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others CA 24-Nov-2006
. .

Cited by:

Procedure adopted – Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc and others HL 9-Jul-2008
The respondents had applied for and obtained an order to revoke the appellant’s patent of a stent for obvousness. Though the parties had settled, the public law element required the intervention of the Comptroller General. The House was asked about . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247401