Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


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














Intellectual Property - From: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 23 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Time Warner Entertainments LP -v- Channel Four Television Corporation plc [1994] EMLR 1
1994
CA
Henry LJ
Intellectual Property
In testing whether a defence to copyright infringement of fair dealing succeeds, the court can take note of the actual purpose of the work, and will look carefully to verify the claimed purpose: "it is necessary to have regard to the true purpose of the work. Is it a genuine piece of criticism or review, or is it something else, such as an attempt to dress up the infringement of another's copyright in the guise of criticism, and so profit unfairly from another's work?"
1 Citers


 
Ibcos Computers Ltd -v- Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd [1994] FSR 275
1994
ChD
Jacob J
Intellectual Property
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 'idea' of the program and its 'expression' is not a distinction known to English law.
Jacob J said: 'The true position is that where an "idea" is sufficiently general, then even if an original work embodies it, the mere taking of that idea will not infringe. But if the "idea" is detailed, then there may be infringement. It is a question of degree. The same applies whether the work is functional or not, and whether visual or literary. In the latter field the taking of a plot (i.e. the "idea") of a novel or play can certainly infringe—if that plot is a substantial part of the copyright work. As Judge Learned Hand said (speaking of the distinction between "idea" and "expression"): Nobody has ever been able to fix that boundary and nobody ever can."'
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Molnlycke AB -v- Procter & Gamble Ltd [1994] RPC 49
1994
CA

Evidence, Intellectual Property
The court said that in patents cases, the primary evidence will be the opinion evidence of properly qualified expert witnesses, all other evidence being secondary to that primary evidence.
1 Citers


 
Tony Blain Pty Ltd -v- Splain [1994] FSR 497
1994

Anderson J
Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Commonwealth
(High Court of New Zealand) Complaint was made the possible sales of products infringing the plaintiffs' 'Metallica' property rights. The court was asked to make an order against unknown defendants. Held: Anderson J discussed the correct approach: "Conceptually the relief sought in this proceeding and the relief in terms of Anton Piller orders are similar. Each involves an intrusion on privacy but is an intrusion which has been justified on the basis of the court's equitable jurisdiction can properly be extended to meet the realities of modern commercial situations. It is an ancient maxim of the law that wherer there is a right there is a remedy: Ubi jus ibi remedium. In circumstances were it is plain that persons are infringing proprietary interests which the law recognises, or deceiving the public by way of trade in a manner which may indirectly affect the commercial interests of others, the law should, if it reasonably can, provide a remedy."
The second defendant was sued as "all persons who sell unlicensed . . merchandise at or about the . . stadium on 26th March 1993 who are served with this statement of claim. In circumstances where it is plain that persons are infringing proprietary interests which the law recognises, or deceiving the public by way of trade in a manner which may indirectly affect the commercial interests of others, the law should, if it reasonably can, provide a remedy. It was proposed that solicitors, officers of the court, should be authorised to accost bootleggers and require them to provide their current addresses, evidence of identity, and to surrender up to the named solicitors all merchandise including T-shirts, head-bands, badges or programmes in their possession or control. Persons required to respond to these oral interrogatories, which conceptually is what they are, will be such persons as are served with the orders for injunction also sought in this proceedings. The second and third defendants are identified as persons who sell unlicensed merchandise at the relevant concert venues. It is expedient to refer to them in this judgment as "John Doe" and "Jane Doe". The fact that persons cannot be identified at this stage of the proceeding is no bar to relief against persons who may be identified at a relevant time. It is not the name but the identity and identification of infringing persons which is relevant. The identify may not be immediately established but persons infringing will be identified by their act of infringement. Jane Doe and John Doe will be known by their works."
1 Citers


 
Shelley Films Ltd -v- Rex Features Ltd [1994] EMLR 134
1994
ChD
Mr Martin Mann QC
Media, Intellectual Property, Equity
Still photographs had been taken of a forthcoming film, which the producers had taken steps to keep confidential. Held: A chancery judge may grant an injunction to restrain the publication of photographs taken surreptitiously in circumstances such that the photographer is to be taken to have known that the occasion was a private one and that the taking of photographs by outsiders was not permitted.
Mr Martin Mann QC said: "whether or not equity imposes an obligation to keep information confidential depends upon a great many factors often unique to the case in which it is said to do so. However, most cases will have certain common constituents, namely, the existence of a body of information which a plaintiff wishes to keep confidential for the protection of some lawful interest of his, a defendant coming into possession of such information in circumstances in which he actually knows (or is fixed by operation of law with knowledge of) or ought as a reasonable person to know the plaintiff intends to be kept confidential, a detriment actual or potential to the plaintiff from publication, the non-availability of such information to the public and the absence of any public interest in disclosure."
1 Citers



 
 Chaplin Patents Holdings Company Plc -v- Group Lotus Plc and Another; CA 10-Jan-1994 - Ind Summary, 10 January 1994; Times, 12 January 1994
 
Bostik Ltd -v- Sellotape Gb Ltd Times, 11 January 1994
11 Jan 1994
ChD

Intellectual Property
There was no passing off in goods if any similarity was discoverable only after a purchase.

 
McDonald and Another -v- Graham Times, 12 January 1994
12 Jan 1994
CA

Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property
The special jurisdiction with regard to patents required the court to have a purposive approach.

 
Re McAngus Ind Summary, 07 February 1994
7 Feb 1994
QBD

Crime, Intellectual Property
Selling counterfeit goods may also be offence under section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.
Theft Act 1968 25

 
Loudoun Manufacturing Co Ltd and Another -v- Courtaulds Plc (T/A John Lean & Sons) Times, 14 February 1994
14 Feb 1994
ChD

Intellectual Property
Trade Mark applicant need only establish bona fide claim, not ownership.

 
Chiron Corporation -v- Organon Teknika Ltd; Same -v- Murex Diagnostics (No 7) Ind Summary, 11 April 1994; Ind Summary, 11 April 1994; Times, 17 February 1994; [1994] FSR 458
17 Feb 1994
ChD
Aldous J
Intellectual Property
The issue of loss in a prior patent challenge is res judicata in later proceedings despite the presence of experimental difficulties leading to ipossibly severe time limits. A patent applicant has no duty to inform the Patent Office of matters surrounding his application over and beyond a general duty of good faith.
Patents Act 1977 63(2)
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Loudoun Manufacturing Co Ltd and Another -v- Courtauld Plc (T/A John Lean) Ind Summary, 28 February 1994
28 Feb 1994
ChD

Intellectual Property
Application for registration without evidence of proprietory interest in the name.
Trade Marks Act 1938 17-1

 
Regina -v- Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Ford Motor Company Ltd Times, 09 March 1994
9 Mar 1994
QBD

Intellectual Property
A car part which has no independent life cannot be Registered Design.
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 265(1)

 
Gillette Uk Ltd and Another -v- Edenwest Ltd Times, 09 March 1994
9 Mar 1994
ChD

Damages, Intellectual Property
The innocence of the infringer, is no bar to an award of damages, if a trade mark is infringed, or in the case of passing off.


 
 Optical Coating Laboratory Inc -v- Pilkington Pe Ltd; CA 28-Mar-1994 - Ind Summary, 28 March 1994
 
Regina -v- Comptroller-General of Patents, ex Parte Archibald Kendrick & Sons Ltd Ind Summary, 17 October 1994; Times, 02 August 1994
2 Aug 1994
QBD

Intellectual Property
Date of filing of international patent application is the actual date of the receipt of the application. There was no deeming provision. The rule did not deem an application to have been filed when it would be received in course of post, instead it was filed only when it was actually received.
Patent Co-operation Treaty 1970

 
Hodgkinson and Corby Ltd and Another -v- Wards Mobility Services Ltd Ind Summary, 17 October 1994; Times, 03 August 1994
3 Aug 1994
ChD

Intellectual Property
Proof of the deception of some purchasers is an essential pre-requisite of the tort of passing off.
1 Citers


 
Thames & Hudson Ltd -v- Design and Artists Copyright Society Ltd and Others Independent, 23 August 1994; Times, 10 August 1994
10 Aug 1994
ChD

Intellectual Property
The criminal code provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act was not limited in use to plainly criminal conduct, against 'pirates'.
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 107(1) 110(1)


 
 Stuart -v- Barrett; 1-Nov-1994 - [1994] EMLR 448
 
PLG Research Ltd and Another -v- Ardon International Ltd and Others [1993] FSR 197
25 Nov 1994
ChD
Aldous J
Intellectual Property, Company
A patent infingement claim was met by the assertion that the material covered had been disclosed before the patent had been obtained. The court was asked as to the test of whether the information in a claim had been disclosed. Aldous J said: "Mr. Thorley submitted that if a product had been made available to the public, it was not possible thereafter to patent the product whether claimed as a product claim or a product-by-process claim. That submission is too broad. Under the 1977 Act, patents may be granted for an invention covering a product that has been put on the market provided the product does not provide an enabling disclosure of the invention claimed. In most cases, prior sale of the product will make available information as to its contents and its method of manufacture, but it is possible to imagine circumstances where that will not happen. In such cases a subsequent patent may be obtained and the only safeguard given to the public is section 64 of the Act." The test is the same under the Patents Acts 1949 and 1977.
As to the case of Catnic: "Lord Diplock was expounding the common law approach to the construction of a patent. This has been replaced by the approach laid down by the Protocol. If the two approaches are the same, reference to Lord Diplock's formulation is unnecessary, while if they are different it is dangerous."
The court considered the liability of a company director for the infringement, the authorities clearly showed "that a director of a company was not automatically to be identified with his company for the purpose of the law of tort, however small the company may be and however powerful his control over its affairs" and that "in every case where it is sought to make him liable for his company's torts, it is necessary to examine with care what part he played personally in regard to the act or acts complained of". Also: "I believe it is clear that a director will not be liable unless his involvement would be such as to render him liable as a joint tortfeasor if the company had not existed. For example, the law distinguishes between facilitating and procuring a tort. A person who only facilitates a tort is not liable as a joint tortfeasor whereas a person who procures the tort is liable."
Patents Act 1977 2(2) 64
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Biogen Inc -v- Medeva Plc Ind Summary, 28 November 1994
28 Nov 1994
CA

Intellectual Property
The description in a patent application's specification must be of an invention.
Patents Act 1977 1(1) 72(1)
1 Citers


 
Regina -v- Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal, Ex Parte Ford Motor Company Ltd Gazette, 22 February 1995; Times, 16 December 1994; (1995) RTR 68; (1995] 1 WLR 18; [1994] UKHL 10; [1995] RPC 167
14 Dec 1994
HL
Lord Keith, Lord Ackner, Lord Goff, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn
Intellectual Property
Car parts which had no effect on appearance and were merely parts were not registerable as Registered Designs.
The section applies only to items of design which will have their own independent use, and not only as part of a larger item. Registration was refused for the part in this case.
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 sch4 - Registered Designs Act 1949 1(1) 44(1)
[ Bailii ]
 
Regina -v- Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd Gazette, 15 February 1995; Ind Summary, 20 February 1995; Times, 16 December 1994; [1995] EMLR 16
16 Dec 1994
CA

Intellectual Property, Media, Judicial Review, Information
The Broadasting Complaints Commission had been established to determine questions of privacy, and the courts should be slow to intervene. The right of privacy of an individual had not been lost by past publicity. That privacy had been infringed by the broadcast complained of, and the commissions decision was not unreasonable. The privacy of bereaved families was infringed by photographs even if the family was otherwise notorious.
Broadcasting Act 1990 143
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.