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: 1800 To: 1849
This page lists 39 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
Hogg -v- Kirby; 15-Mar-1803 - [1803] EngR 513; (1803) 8 Ves Jun 215; (1803) 32 ER 336 (B)
Carr -v- Hood [1808] 1 Camp 354
1808
QBD
Lord Ellenborough
Defamation, Intellectual Property
Lord Ellenborough said: "it is not libellous to ridicule a literary composition, or the author of it, in so far as he has embodied himself with his work.
Every man who publishes a book commits himself to the judgment of the public, and anyone may comment upon his performance. If the commentator does not step aside from the work, or introduce fiction for the purpose of condemnation, he exercises a fair and legitimate right. In the present case, had the party writing the criticism followed the plaintiff into domestic life for the purpose of slander, that would have been libellous: but no passage of this sort has been produced; and even the caricature does not effect the plaintiff, except as the author of the book which is ridiculed."
1 Citers
Wilkins -v- Aikin [1810] EngR 465; (1810) 17 Ves Jun 422; (1810) 34 ER 163
4 Aug 1810
Intellectual Property
The defendant was said to have copied works of the plaintiff. The court considered the defence of fair use.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Gahagan -v- Cooper [1811] EngR 614; (1811) 3 Camp 111; (1811) 170 ER 1323
4 Dec 1811
Lord Ellenborough
Intellectual Property
Lord Ellenborough discussed the 1798 Act, saying: "The statute seems to have been framed with a view to defeat its own object"
Copyright Act 1798
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Lord And Lady Perceval -v- Phipps [1813] EngR 380; (1813) 2 Ves & Bea 19; (1813) 35 ER 225
3 Jun 1813
Intellectual Property
Copyright in private letters remained even after transmission and an injunction could be granted to prevent further repubication. However here where the defendant was relying upon the letters to disprove false allegations made against him, that copyright dissolved.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Earl Cholmondeley -v- Lord Clinton [1815] EngR 511; (1815) 19 Ves Jun 261; (1815) 34 ER 515
3 Feb 1815
Legal Professions, Intellectual Property
An Attorney or solicitor cannot give up his client, and act for the opposite party, in any suit between them.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Southey -v- Sherwood And Others [1817] EngR 351; (1817) 2 Mer 435; (1817) 35 ER 1006
18 Mar 1817
Lord Eldon
Intellectual Property
Lord Eldon refused an injunction to restrain the publication of Wat Tyler, because he held the work itself to be of an injurious tendency; but he maintained the principle, that, if the work had been innocent in its character, the author would have been entitled to the protection of the Court; and held, that an author had a property in an unpublished work, independently of the statute of 8 Anne, c. 19.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Ann Paxton Gee -v- William Pritchard And William Anderson [1818] EngR 605; (1818) 2 Swans 402; (1818) 36 ER 670
17 Jul 1818
Intellectual Property
The Lord Chancellor repudiated an argument that the publication of letters should be restrained, because their publication would be painful to the feelings of the Plaintiff; and said, "The question will be, whether the bill has stated facts of which the Court can take notice, as a case of civil property, which it is bound to protect."
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Murray -v- Elliston [1822] EngR 284; (1822) 5 B & A 657; (1822) 106 ER 1331
3 May 1822
Intellectual Property
The defendant represented Lord Byron's tragedy of "Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice," on the stage, with some alterations from the printed tragedy. Held: The manager of a theatre having publicly represented for profit a tragedy, altered and abridged for the stage, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, was not liable to an action, although the tragedy had been previously printed and published for sale.
"The line of demarcation betwixt law and ethics must be strictly observed, and internal actions must not be made the objects of law. This doctrine was fully recognised by the Romans: whence the maxim, 'Interna non curat praetor.' When this fundamental distinction is violated, a door is opened at once to the most injurious and arbitrary invasions of the rights of individuals by the ruling power: and in general, wherever the judicial power is allowed to encroach too far on the widely extended domain of moral duties, it is in danger of becoming inconsistent and unjust."
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
The Stationers -v- The Patentees About The Printing Of Roll's Abridgment [1823] EngR 263; (1823) Cart 89; (1823) 124 ER 842
1823
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Green -v- Folgham [1823] EngR 586; (1823) 1 Sim & St 398; (1823) 57 ER 159
10 Jun 1823
Intellectual Property
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Abernethy -v- Hutchinson (1825) 1 H&Tw 28; [1825] EngR 653; (1824-1825) 1 H & Tw 28; (1825) 47 ER 1313
17 Jun 1825
Lord Eldon LC
Intellectual Property
An application was made to restrain the Defendants from publishing, in "The Lancet," Mr Abernethy's Lectures, which had been delivered extemporally. Lord Eldon, at first, refused the application; but afterward granted an injunction, in the ground that there was an implied contract between him and the parties who attended his Lectures, that they should not publish them.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
British Celanese Ltd -v- Courtaulds Ltd; HL 1835 - (1935) 52 RPC 171
Saunders And Benning -v- Smith And Maxwell [1838] EngR 772; (1838) 3 My & K 711; (1838) 40 ER 1100
22 Jun 1838
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Re Russell's Patent [1838] UKPC 25
12 Dec 1838
PC
Commonwealth, iNtellectual Property
(United Kingdom)
[ Bailii ]
Re Russell's Patent [1838] EngR 1068; (1838) 2 Moo PC 496; (1838) 12 ER 1095
12 Dec 1838
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Re Kay's Patent [1839] EngR 815; (1839) 3 Moo PC 24; (1839) 13 ER 10
13 Jun 1839
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In The Matter Of Job Cutler's Patent [1839] EngR 1222; (1839) 4 My & Cr 510; (1839) 41 ER 196
24 Dec 1839
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Sharp's Patent, re, ex parte Wordsworth (1840) 3 Beav 245; 49 ER 96
1840
CA
Langdale MR
Intellectual Property
The court considered what counted as a clerical error: "And in every case which has occurred, it has plainly been intended to do no more than to amend mere slips or clerical errors made by the parties, or the agents of the parties, who intending to make an accurate enrolment, have, by mere inadvertence, made an enrolment which was not what it purported to be, a true statement of that which the party intended at the time . . ."
1 Citers
Re Bodmer's Patent [1840] EngR 631; (1838-40) 2 Moo PC 471; (1840) 12 ER 1085
29 May 1840
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In Re Sharp's Patent, Ex Parte Wordsworth [1840] EngR 1101; (1840) 3 Beav 245; (1840) 49 ER 96
22 Dec 1840
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Re Woodcroft's Patent [1841] EngR 374; (1841) 3 Moo PC 171; (1841) 13 ER 72
11 Feb 1841
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In Re Nickels' Patent [1841] EngR 763; (1841) 4 Beav 563; (1841) 49 ER 457
5 Jun 1841
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In The Matter Of Nickels' Patent [1841] EngR 967; (1841) 1 Ph 36; (1841) 41 ER 544
3 Aug 1841
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Perry -v- Truefitt (1842) 49 ER 749; (1842) 6 Beav 66
1842
CA
Lord Langdale MR
Intellectual Property, Torts - Other
The court considered the nature of the tort of passing off. "I think that the principle on which both the courts of law and of equity proceed, in granting relief and protection in cases of this sort, is very well understood. A man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man; he cannot be permitted to practice such a deception, nor to use the means which contribute to that end. He cannot therefore be allowed to use names, marks, letters, or other indicia, by which he may induce purchasers to believe, that the goods which he is selling are the manufacture of another person. I own it does not seem to me that a man can acquire property in a name or mark; but whether he has or not a property in the name or mark, I have no doubt that another person has not the right to use that name or mark for the purposes of deception, and in order to attract to himself the course of trade, or that custom, which without the improper act, would have flowed to the person who first used, or was alone in the habit of using the particular name or mark."
1 Citers
Re Simister's Patent [1842] EngR 1161; (1842) 4 Moo PC 164; (1842) 13 ER 264
7 Dec 1842
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Bentley -v- James Keighley And Another [1844] EngR 163; (1844) 6 Man & G 1039; (1844) 134 ER 1213
27 Jan 1844
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In Re Derosne's Patent [1844] EngR 553; (1844) 4 Moo PC 416; (1844) 13 ER 363
20 May 1844
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Bentley -v- Keighley And Another [1844] EngR 668; (1844) 7 Man & G 652; (1844) 135 ER 262
12 Jun 1844
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In Re Robinson's Patent [1845] EngR 459; (1845) 5 Moo PC 65; (1845) 13 ER 414
3 Feb 1845
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Clarke -v- Tipping [1846] EngR 548; (1846) 9 Beav 284; (1846) 50 ER 352
18 Apr 1846
Wigram VC
Agency, Intellectual Property
The Defendant had bribed the Plaintiff's agent to make extracts of false entries from the books of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not move for an injunction on the Defendant's answer; but, on the cause coming on for hearing, it appeared that Clarke had filed another bill in the Rolls Court, and had obtained in that suit an inspection of those books; and therefore the bill was dismissed. But the principle that an agent could not be allowed to communicate the contents of his employer's books to another person, and that that person could not publish the information so improperly obtained, was directly admitted by the Vice-Chancellor. A person guilty of bribery takes the knowledge he obtains with no better right to use it than the party communicating it; but here there is neither bribery nor fraud.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Spottiswoode -v- Clark [1846] EngR 1197; (1846) 1 Coop T Cott 254; (1846) 47 ER 844
11 Dec 1846
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property
A plaintiff seeking an injunction to restrain publication of documents must first demonstrate a title in them.
1 Citers
[ Commonlii ]
Guinness -v- Ullmer (1847) 10 LT (OS) 127
1847
Intellectual Property
Labels similar to the ones used by the plaintiffs had been printed by a Mr Taylor from blocks manufactured by the defendants, and a trade mark infringement was seemingly alleged. Held: An injunction was granted to prevent the defendants from producing or selling blocks or plates adapted to print labels similar to those of the plaintiff.
1 Citers
In Re Card's Patent [1848] EngR 258; (1848) 6 Moo PC 207; (1848) 13 ER 663
9 Feb 1848
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
Prince Albert -v- Strange; ChD 8-Feb-1849 - (1849) 1 H & Tw 1; 2 De G & SM 293; (1849) 1 Mac & G 25; [1849] EWHC Ch J20; [1849] EngR 255; (1849) 41 ER 1171; [1849] EngR 261; (1849) 47 ER 1302; (1849) 2 De Gex & Sim 652
In Re Hardy's Patent [1849] EngR 295; (1849) 6 Moo PC 441; (1849) 13 ER 754
12 Feb 1849
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In Re Bodmer's Patent Present: [1849] EngR 401; (1849) 6 Moo PC 468; (1849) 13 ER 764
16 Mar 1849
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In Re Patterson's Patent [1849] EngR 761; (1849) 6 Moo PC 469; (1849) 13 ER 765
21 Jun 1849
PC
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]
In The Matter Of The Patent Elastic Pavement And Kamptulicon Company And In The Matter Of The Joint Stock Companies Winding-Up Acts, 1848 And 1849 Armstrong's Case [1849] EngR 1156; (1849) 3 De G & Sm 140; (1849) 64 ER 416
6 Dec 1849
Intellectual Property
[ Commonlii ]