Bayerische Motoren Werke Ag (Bmw) v Premier Alloy Wheels (Uk) Ltd and Others: ChD 8 Jun 2018

Application for a search order, interim injunction and related relief. The claimant alleged the manufacture of fake BMW wheels by the defendant.
Mr Justice Henry Carr gave his reasons for granting a search order, interim injunction and related relief. He summarised the criteria: ‘A search and seizure order is an exceptional form of relief. The conditions that need to be satisfied are as follows. First, there must be a strong prima facie case of a civil cause of action. Suspicion is not enough; nor is it enough that there is a serious question to be tried. Second, the danger to the applicant to be avoided by the grant of the order must be serious, and if the order is to forestall the destruction of evidence, the evidence must be of major importance. Third, there must be clear evidence that the respondent has incriminating documents or articles in its possession. Fourth, there must be a real possibility of the destruction or removal of evidence. Fifth, the harm likely to be caused by the execution of the order on the respondent and his business affairs must not be out of proportion to the legitimate object of the order.’

Henry Carr J
[2018] EWHC 1713 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCalor Gas Ltd v Chorley Bottle Gas Ltd and Another QBD 22-Jul-2020
Search and Seizure – Concerns for Public Safety
The claimant supplied branded liquid gas containers and the gas, on condition that only its liquid gas would be used within the containers. The sought a search and seizure order against the defendants, saying that the public health and safety risks . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.619885

Redwood Music Ltd v Chappell and Co Ltd: ChD 1982

It was submitted that an arrangement of an existing musical work only attracted a separate copyright if it involved great skill and labour. After referring to the University of London Press Limited, the court held: ‘That passage was cited with approval in the House of Lords in Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 W.L.R. 273 at pp. 277-78 per Lord Reid, where he stated that there was no dispute about the meaning of the term ‘original’. It is on this basis, of course, that there may be copyright in works of a comparatively humdrum nature, such as straightforward translations; though of course such copyright may be of little value, because another such work may be produced without difficulty, without recourse to the copyright work. I should add that the decision in Wood v. Boosey, relied on by Mr Bateson, although decided before the Copyright Act 1911 and not therefore decided as a matter of construction of the statutory words ‘original work’, is in my judgement consistent with the test proposed by Peterson J. The case was concerned with the question whether a piano reduction by Brissler of Nicolai’s opera The Merry Wives of Windsor attracted a separate copyright in the arrangement, or whether the copyright in the piano reduction belonged to the owner of the copyright in the original opera. In holding that the piano reduction was an independent composition in which the arranger, as author, owned the copyright, the Court of Exchequer Chamber considered the questions whether it was ‘a new and substantive work in itself’, or whether there was ‘something in the nature of authorship in Brissler’ – tests at least consistent with that now adopted in relation to the statutory definition under the Acts of 1911 and 1956.’

Robert Goff J
[1982] RPC 109
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedUniversity of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd ChD 1916
In a copyright claim, the test of originality which had to be passed was set out by Peterson J, saying: ‘The word ‘original’ does not in this connection mean that the work must be the expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are . .
CitedLadbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd HL 1964
What is substantial copying
The plaintiff alleged copying of their football pools coupons and copyright infringement. The issues were as to the extent of copying required to establish infringement, and whether it was proper to look at the several parts of the work separately. . .

Cited by:
CitedSawkins v Hyperion Records Limited ChD 5-Jul-2004
The claimant had edited ancient music scores so as to be ready for performance for the defendant. He asserted a copyright. The defendants argued that the contribution was too little to create a copyright.
Held: To succeed Dr Sawkins had to . .
CitedFisher v Brooker and Another ChD 20-Dec-2006
The claimant said that he had contributed to the copyright in the song ‘A Whiter Shade of Pale’ but had been denied royalties. He had played the organ and particularly the organ solo which had contrbuted significantly to the fame of the record.
CitedHodgens v Beckingham CA 19-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed a finding of infringement in a music copyright work, ‘Young at Heart’, based on a claim of joint authorship. The claimant had delayed his claim for many years, but now sought only rights to future royalties.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.199977

Antonio Munoz Y Cia S A , Superior Fruticola S A v Frumar Limited, Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited: PatC 26 Mar 1999

European legislation which controlled the naming and use of patented grape varieties did not provide for actions directly between the owner of the mark and an infringer. The purpose of the legislation was consumer protection achieved in other ways.

Times 02-Apr-1999
EC Treaty
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal toAntonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromAntonio Munoz Y Cia SA Superior Fruitcola SA v Frumar Limited Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited CA 16-Jun-1999
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Agriculture, Intellectual Property

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136047

Starbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others: CA 15 Nov 2013

The claimant appealed against rejection of its claim for trade mark infrimgement. It had a goodwill in China, and, it claimed among the chinese community in the UK. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed.

Patten, Pitchford LJJ, Sir John Mummery
[2013] EWCA Civ 1465, [2014] ECC 4, [2014] FSR 20
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At ChDStarbucks (HK) Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others ChD 2-Nov-2012
The claimants asserted infringement by the defendants of their registered Community Trade Mark by their announcement of a new TV station ‘NOW TV’. The defendants in turn challenged the validity of the mark.
Held: The court found that a . .
SeeAlsoStarbucks (Hk) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others CA 13-Sep-2012
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromStarbucks (HK) Ltd and Another v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and Others SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked whether, as the appellants contended, a claimant who is seeking to maintain an action in passing off need only establish a reputation among a significant section of the public within the jurisdiction, or whether, as the courts . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518039

Nike International Ltd, Avar, Grove, Kilgore and Friton (Patent): IPO 2 Aug 2013

An uncontested application was filed by Nike International Ltd. under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that both Bruce J. Kilgore and Michael R. Friton should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Eric P. Avar and James A. Grove in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

[2013] UKIntelP o31013
Bailii
Patenta Act 1977 13(1)
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517181

Philippe Bencteux and Steevy Cordette (Patent): IPO 9 Sep 2013

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Philippe Bencteux under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Steevy Cordette should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Philippe Bencteux in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Mr A R Bushell
[2013] UKIntelP o36313, EP (UK) 1792638
Bailii
Patents Act 1977 13(1)
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517189

Monkey Tower Limited v Ability International Limited (Patent): IPO 15 Aug 2013

IPO The patent relates to a platform for allowing overhead access in an office environment and has previously been the subject of a separate claim to entitlement before the comptroller. The claimant argued that the invention is either anticipated by the earlier disclosure in a US patent or that it comprises trivial design features regarded as obvious in the light of this earlier disclosure. The US patent is concerned with an extensible ladder and scaffold construction. The patentee denied that D1 anticipates or renders obvious any of the claims of the granted patent, but submitted conditional amendments in the event that the patent was found to be invalid. The hearing officer issued a non-binding preliminary evaluation early on in proceedings in which he expressed the view that claim 1 was anticipates by the prior art. Despite the view expressed in this preliminary, the patentee maintained the validity of the granted patent.
In deciding the issue on the basis of the papers on file, the hearing officer agreed with the claimant’s argument that claim 1 of the patent was anticipated. He considered the arguments against conditional amendments and found that there was a basis for an allowable amendment. The patentee was given a period of time to submit amendments under section 75 or else the patent would be revoked. Any amendments filed would be subject to opposition. Costs were awarded to the claimant, with account taken for the patentee’s insistence on maintaining the patent in its unamended form despite the preliminary evaluation, and also the filing of evidence by the claimant which sought to broaden the pleaded case.

Mr H Jones
[2013] UKIntelP o33413, GB2432573
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.517179