Tag: Intellectual Property

Raft Ltd v Freestyle of Newhaven Ltd and Others: IPEC 13 Jul 2016

Hacon HHJ
[2016] EWHC 1711 (IPEC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Walter v Lane HL 6-Aug-1900
Reporter of Public Speech Owns Copyright I
A reporter attended a speech by Lord Rosebery. His report of the speech was republished in the Times after another journalist who had not been present published a verbatim copy. He claimed a copyright in the work he produced.
Held: The first . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.570002

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Garcia and Others: ChD 25 Jun 2013

Application for an interim injunction pending trial. The claimants seek an order preventing the publication in an unedited form of an academic paper by the defendants. The defendants resist that order. They contend the paper should be published unedited. The paper would discuss possible ways of breaching the claimants’ car security systems.
Held: The interim injunction was granted.

Birss J
[2013] EWHC 1832 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.514960

Whitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage and Others: ChD 4 Jul 2013

Whitmar claimed damages for breach of contract; an account of profits; damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or for infringement of its Database Rights under the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997; and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using and disclosing its confidential information obtained during their employment by Whitmar.
Held: The relief was given. The defendants had begun their acting in competition to their employers before leaving employment.
‘the critical distinction between the duty of good faith and fidelity owed by an employee and the fiduciary duties is that an employee is not in the position of a fiduciary, such as a director. It is trite law that a director owes fiduciary duties to the company of which he or she is a director, and is under a duty to act in good faith in what he or she considers to be the best interests of the company. An employee does not have such a wide- reaching obligation.’

Peter Leaver QC DHCJ
[2013] EWHC 1881 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd HL 5-Feb-1975
Interim Injunctions in Patents Cases
The plaintiffs brought proceedings for infringement of their patent. The proceedings were defended. The plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants infringing their patent, but they now appealed its discharge by the Court of . .
Cited – Lawrence David Limited v Ashton CANI 1989
The American Cyanamid principles apply in cases of interlocutory injunctions in restraint of trade just as they do in other cases. . .
Cited – Lawrence David Limited v Ashton CANI 1989
The American Cyanamid principles apply in cases of interlocutory injunctions in restraint of trade just as they do in other cases. . .
Cited – Lansing Linde v Kerr CA 1991
Staughton LJ held that ‘trade secrets’ embrace information used in a trade, restricted in its dissemination, and the disclosure of which would be liable to cause real or significant harm to the party claiming confidentiality. He considered the . .
Cited – Wessex Dairies Limited v Smith CA 1935
A milk roundsman employed by a dairy who canvassed the dairy’s customers while in the employ of the dairy but to take effect after his employment had terminated.
Held: The question to be determined depended upon the term to be implied in the . .
Cited – Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler CA 1986
Nature of Confidentiality in Information
The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using . .
Cited – Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler CA 1986
Nature of Confidentiality in Information
The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using . .
Cited – Nottingham University v Fishel QBD 19-Jan-2000
When a university embryologist, the respondent, worked abroad he did not act in any breach of fiduciary duty. He remained under a specific duty to direct his fellow embryologists to work in the interests of the university and not in his own . .
Cited – Ranson v Customer Systems Plc CA 27-Jun-2012
Lewison LJ considered the contractual duty of fidelity within an employment contract:
‘It is not disputed that an employee has an obligation of fidelity towards his employer. If the obligation is not expressed, it will invariably be implied.
Cited – Lansing Linde v Kerr CA 1991
Staughton LJ held that ‘trade secrets’ embrace information used in a trade, restricted in its dissemination, and the disclosure of which would be liable to cause real or significant harm to the party claiming confidentiality. He considered the . .
Cited – In re H and R (Minors) (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) HL 14-Dec-1995
Evidence allowed – Care Application after Abuse
Children had made allegations of serious sexual abuse against their step-father. He was acquitted at trial, but the local authority went ahead with care proceedings. The parents appealed against a finding that a likely risk to the children had still . .
Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
Cited – Brutt Trade Marks 2007
. .
Cited – Ranson v Customer Systems Plc CA 27-Jun-2012
Lewison LJ considered the contractual duty of fidelity within an employment contract:
‘It is not disputed that an employee has an obligation of fidelity towards his employer. If the obligation is not expressed, it will invariably be implied.
Cited – Imam-Sadeque v Bluebay Asset Management (Services) Ltd QBD 10-Dec-2012
Popplewell J said: ‘In general terms, it can be said that the duty of fidelity requires an employee not to engage in competitive activity. Nevertheless, it is legitimate for him to undertake competitive activity as soon as he ceases the employment . .
Cited – Balston Ltd v Headline Filters Ltd and Another ChD 1990
The claimant, a manufacturer of filter tubes, employed the defendant as a director. He gave notice to leave, but during his notice period, he was contacted by a customer who informed him of a meeting between that customer and the company at which . .
Cited – Sun Valley Foods Limited v Vincent 2000
The court considered the grant of ‘springboard relief’. Jonathan Parker J said: ‘For reasons which I have already explained, there is no room for doubt that the defendants have made unlawful use of material in which Sun Valley/Fields has a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Intellectual Property

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512439

Societe Des Produits Nestle v Mondelez UK Holdings and Services: ECJ 19 Apr 2018

3D trade mark – opinion

EU Trade Mark – Opinion – Appeal – EU trade mark – Three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a four-finger chocolate bar – Application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by the applicant – Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal

Wathelet AG
ECLI:EU:C:2018:266, [2018] EUECJ C-84/17P – O
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 7(3)
European

Intellectual Property

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.609069

Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd And Others v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd: PC 13 Oct 1980

(New South Wales) The plaintiff had launched and advertised a soft drink. A year later, the defendant launched a similar product using similar names, styles and advertising, but then registered trade marks. The plaintiff sought damages, and for the trade mark to be deregistered. The judge held that there was enough of a difference to keep the defendants innocent of passing off, and though they had sought to ride on the back of the plaintiff’s advertising there was no misrepresentation.
Held: The get up and style of a product could be used as part of a passing off where it had come to be closely associated with a product, but there was evidence to support the judge’s finding that there had been no misrepresentation, and the claim in passing off was not made out. The date which mattered was that date at which the conduct complained of commenced. The judge had correctly used that date, and a mistaken reference to the date of commencement of the hearing did not vitiate the decision. Appeal dismissed.

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Edmund-Davies, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Scarman and Lord Roskill
[1981] 1 WLR 193, [1981] RPC 429, [1980] UKPC 30
lip, Bailii
Australia
Citing:
Cited – Cheney Brothers v Doris Silk Corporation 1929
Judge Learned Hand refused to enjoin copying of designs for silk fabrics. If a ‘writing’ is within the scope of the constitutional clause, and Congress has not protected it, whether deliberately or by unexplained omission, it can be freely copied. . .
Cited – Felton v Mulligan 2-Sep-1971
(Australia) The court was concerned to interpret the phrase ‘arising under any laws made by the Parliament’
Austlii Constitutional Law (Cth) – Privy Council – Appeal from State Supreme Court invested with . .
Cited – Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Pty Ltd 1978
. .
Cited – International News Service v Associated Press 1918
The Supreme Court introduced the concept of ‘unfair competition’. . .
Cited – Leather Cloth Co Ltd v American Leather Cloth Co Ltd HL 1-Feb-1865
Where an individual works in a partnership the goodwill generated by his acts will in the normal course vest in the partnership.
Lord Kingsdown said: ‘Nobody doubts that a trader may be guilty of such misrepresentations with regard to his . .
Cited – Kark (Norman) Publications Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd 1962
Wilberforce, J described the basis of a passing off action in respect of the name of a newspaper or magazine as being a proprietary right not so much in the name itself but in the goodwill established through the use of the name in connection with . .
Cited – Reddaway and Co Ltd v Banham and Co Ltd HL 1896
The plaintiff manufactured and sold Camel Hair Belting. The defendant also began to sell belting made of camel’s hair in the name of Camel Hair Belting. The trader claimed a right in the term ‘Camel Hair’.
Held: The term was descriptive. Where . .
Cited – Slazenger and Sons v Feltham and Co CA 1889
As to a party, a court will not ‘be astute to say that he cannot succeed in doing that which he is straining every nerve to do’. . .
Cited – Spalding (A G ) and Brothers v A W Gamage Ltd HL 1915
The House considered the requirements for the tort of passing off. The judge has the sole responsibility for deciding whether anybody has been misled. He will hear evidence, but must not surrender his assessment to others.
Lord Parker said: . .
Cited – Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor 26-Aug-1937
(High Court of Australia) . .
Cited – Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap v J Townend and Sons (Hull) Limited (‘Advocaat’) HL 1979
The trademark was the name of a spirit-based product called ADVOCAAT. The product had gained a reputation and goodwill for that name in the English market and the defendants were seeking to take advantage of that name by misrepresenting that their . .

Cited by:
Cited – Inter Lotto (Uk) Ltd v Camelot Group Plc CA 30-Jul-2003
The claimant and defendant had each operated using a the name ‘HotSpot’ for a name for its lottery. The respondent had registered the name as a trade mark. The claimant began to use the name first and claimed in passing off, and the respondent . .
Cited – Alan Kenneth McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd PatC 21-Jan-1998
The claimant was a member of Parliament and an author. The defendant published a column which was said to give the impression that the claimant had written it. It was a parody. The claim was in passing off.
Held: The first issue was whether a . .
Cited – Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd IPEC 29-May-2014
The claimant asserted passing off and trade mark infringement by the defendant in respect of its own hair oil product and the defendant’s sale of ‘Miracle Oil’. The defendant counterclaimed in a threat action. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.174751

Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 21 May 2013

Mark use in search engine was infringing use

The claimant mark owner alleged that the defendant, in paying a search engine to use the claimants mark as a search keyword was infringing its rights. The defendant argued that the use of the same sign in different contexts could amount to a different and non-infringing use.
Held: The defence failed. European trade mark law did not include any rule that the context of use of a sign was deemed to convey a single meaning in law even though different people might understand it in different ways. It was enough that a significant proportion of users might be confused.

Arnold J
[2013] WLR(D) 206, [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch)
Bailii, WLRD
Trade Marks Act 1994 10(1)(2), Council Regulation 40/94/EC 9(1), Council Directive 89/104/EEC 5(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 29-Apr-2010
Response to request for clarification of reference to the ECJ. . .
ECJ Opinion – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 24-Mar-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Trade marks – Keyword advertising corresponding to the trade mark of a competitor of the advertiser – Trade marks with a reputation – Blurring – Tarnishment – Free-riding – Directive 89/104 – . .
ECJ – Interflora And Others v Marks and Spencer plc, Flowers Direct Online Limited ECJ 22-Sep-2011
ECJ Trade marks – Keyword advertising on the internet – Selection by the advertiser of a keyword corresponding to a competitor’s trade mark with a reputation – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 5(1)(a) and (2) – . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 20-Jun-2012
Application for permission to to adduce witness evidence at trial from witnesses gathered from two pilot surveys. . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Interflora Inc and Another CA 20-Nov-2012
The court gave guidance on the use of surveys in trials for passing off and trade mark infringement.
Lewison LJ reviewed the practice of conducting interviews and surveys in passing off cases: ‘The upshot of this review is that courts have . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 21-Feb-2013
‘The Claimants (‘Interflora’) seek the permission of the Court to adduce in evidence the witness statements of 13 witnesses at the trial of this action scheduled for mid April 2013. Interflora do not accept that they need the Court’s permission, but . .
See Also – Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 22-Mar-2013
Interflora had been refused permision to adduce survey evidence, but now appealed against refusal of permission to adduce evidence of confusion by witness statements.
Held: Appeal allowed. Reasons to follow. . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc CA 5-Apr-2013
The court gave its reasons for allowing the claimant to bring additional witness evidence as to confusion as opposed to survey evidence. . .
See Also – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 15-Apr-2013
The defendant objected to the introduction of certain evidence by the claimant under a Civil Evidence Act notice. . .

Cited by:
Main judgment – Interflora Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another ChD 12-Jun-2013
The court considered the form of the injunction requested to give effect to the earlier full judgment in the case brought, requiring the defendant to discontinue any use of the terms complained of as infringing the claimant’s registered marks as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.510000

ITV Broadcasting and Others v TVCatchup Limited (in administration): ECJ 1 Mar 2017

No European Law excuse for live streaming breach

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2001/29/EC – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Article 9 – Access to cable of broadcasting services – Concept of ‘cable’ – Retransmission of broadcasts of commercial television broadcasters by a third party via the internet – ‘Live streaming’

T von Danwitz (Rapporteur) P
ECLI:EU:C:2017:144, [2017] EUECJ C-275/15, [2017] WLR(D) 141
Bailii, WLRD
European

Intellectual Property, Media

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.579678

Apis-Hristovich v Lakorda AD (Approximation Of Laws): ECJ 5 Mar 2009

apishristovichECJ2009

Europa Directive 96/9/EC Legal protection of databases – Sui generis right – Obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents of a database – Extraction – Substantial part of the contents of a database – Database containing official legal data.
APIS had collected a database of legal materials. They alleged unlawful extraction and re-utilisation by the defendant of their product. They said that the defendant had extracted about 82.5% of its database of laws and cases and reproduced them for its own purposes. The defendants, including former employees of the claimant said that they had themselves spent substantial sums collecting the material from other public sources. The national court asked how to interpret ‘permanent transfer’ and ‘temporary transfer’ together.
Held: The documents incude not only the formal public material, but editors notes and references, histories and links. ‘The decisive criterion . . is to be found in the existence of an act of ‘transfer’ of all or part of the contents of the database concerned to another medium, whether of the same nature as the medium of that database or of a different nature. Such a transfer implies that all or part of the contents of a database are to be found in a medium other than that of the original database.’ and ‘ the distinction between permanent transfer and temporary transfer lies in the duration of storage on another medium of materials extracted from the original database. There is permanent transfer when those materials are stored in a permanent manner on a medium other than the original medium, whereas the transfer is temporary if the materials are stored for a limited period on another medium, such as the operating memory of a computer.’ The notion of the sui generis database right is ‘unencumbered by considerations relating, in particular, to the substantive content of the body of materials in question.’ and ‘the sui generis right applies independently of whether the database and/or its contents are protected, inter alia, by copyright.’

C-545/07, [2009] EUECJ C-545/07
Bailii
Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases
Citing:
Cited – Union Royale Belge des societes de Football Association and others v Bosman and others ECJ 15-Dec-1995
bosmanECJ1995
A request for the Court to order a measure of inquiry under Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure, made by a party after the close of the oral procedure, can be admitted only if it relates to facts which may have a decisive influence and which the . .
Cited – Centro Europa 7 SrL v Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorit- per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni, Direzione generale per le concessioni e le autorizzazioni del Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Industrial Policy) ECJ 12-Sep-2007
Europa Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy). Freedom to provide services Electronic communications Television broadcasting activities New common regulatory framework Allocation . .
Cited – Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis ECJ 25-Feb-2003
Europa Social security – Hospital treatment of a pensioner during a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he resides – Conditions for funding – Articles 31 and 96 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 – . .
Cited – PreussenElektra v Schleswag AG, in the presence of Windpark Reussenkoge III GmbH and Land Schleswig-Holstein ECJ 13-Mar-2001
Europa Electricity – Renewable sources of energy – National legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the resulting costs between those . .
Cited – The British Horseracing Board Ltd and Others v William Hill Organization Ltd ECJ 9-Nov-2004
bhb_whECJ2004
The claimant sought to prevent re-use by the defendant of information from its horse racing subscription service. They claimed that they had a database right in the information. It cost andpound;4m per year to assemble.
Held: The expression . .
Cited – Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (Motoe) (Competition) ECJ 6-Mar-2008
Europa Competition Sport Articles 82 EC and 86 EC Definition of undertaking Economic activities Abuse of a dominant position Grant of special or exclusive rights Non-profit-making organisation which participates . .
Cited – Fixtures Marketing v Organismos prognostikon agonon podosfairou AE (OPAP) ECJ 9-Nov-2004
ECJ The term database as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases refers to any collection of works, data or . .
Cited – Directmedia Publishing v Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg (Approximation of Laws) ECJ 10-Jul-2008
Europa Legal protection of databases Directive 96/9/EC – Notion of ‘extraction’ in Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 96/9/EC. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.317887

Neutrogena Coroporation v Golden Ltd: ChD 1996

Jacob J discussed the value of survey evidence in passing off cases: ‘Unless one can have some real evidence, tested in cross examination, one cannot really be sure of what was passing through peoples minds. Those cases where surveys have proved to be useful have all involved some of the ‘Pollees’ coming to court.’ and
‘The proper approach of the Court to the question was not in dispute. The Judge must consider the evidence adduced and use his own common sense and his own opinion as to the likelihood of deception. It is an overall ‘jury’ assessment involving a combination of all these factors, see ‘GE’ Trade Mark [1973] R.P.C. 297 at page 321. Ultimately the question is one for the Court, not for the witnesses. It follows that if the Judge’s own opinion is that the case is marginal, one where he cannot be sure whether there is a likelihood of sufficient deception, the case will fail in the absence of enough evidence of the likelihood of deception. But if that opinion of the Judge is supplemented by such evidence then it will succeed. And even if one’s own opinion is that deception is unlikely though possible, convincing evidence of deception will carry the day. The Jif lemon case (Reckitt and Coleman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] R.P.C. 341) is a recent example where overwhelming evidence of deception had that effect. It was certainly my experience in practice that my own view as to the likelihood of deception was not always reliable. As I grew more experienced I said more and more ‘it depends on the evidence’.

Jacob J
[1996] RPC 473
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Neutrogena Coroporation v Golden Ltd CA 1996
The court discussd the ‘substantial proportion of the public’ test applied in passing off. The purpose of this evidence was to provide real evidence from ordinary members of the public wholly untainted by any artificiality. . .
Cited – A and E Television Networks Llc and Another v Discovery Communications Europe Ltd ChD 1-Feb-2013
The claimants had operated the ‘History’ and associated variant TV channels and trade marks. The claimed that the defendant’s ‘Discovery History’ channels were in breach. The defendants challenged the validity of the trade marks. The court now . .
Cited – Bocacina Ltd v Boca Cafes Ltd IPEC 14-Oct-2013
The claimant alleged passing off by the defendant’s use of the name ‘Boca Bistro Cafe’, and subsequently ‘Bica Bistro Cafe’
Held: Where the defendant had changed its trading style during the proceedings it was possible, if the claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.470732

Mezvinsky and Another v Associated Newspapers Ltd: ChD 25 May 2018

Choice of Division and Business Lists

Claim that the publication of pictures of the young children of the celebrity claimants had been published by the defendant on-line without consent and without pixelation, in breach of their human rights, of data protection, and right to privacy. The defendants now sought the transfer of the case to the Queens Bench Division.
Held: There is concurrent jurisdiction between the two divisions for issuing a privacy claim. The creation of the Media and Communications List was not under the CPR: it is a means by which work that is already within the Queen’s Bench Division is allocated for its proper performance. The creation of the M and CL has no direct extra-divisional effect.’ The application was refused. It had been made in part on mistaken assumptions, and: ‘There is no basis for concluding that the Queen’s Bench Division M and CL is the appropriate, or the more appropriate, venue for this claim. Both the Business List (ChD) and the Queen’s Bench M and CL are appropriate. There are no good reasons to transfer the claim and disturb the legitimate choice made by the claimants at the point the claim was issued.’

Marsh CM
[2018] EWHC 1261 (Ch)
Bailii
Senior Courts Act 1981, Civil Procedure Rules 30
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – NATL Amusements (UK) Ltd and Others v White City (Shepherds Bush) Ltd Partnership and Another TCC 16-Oct-2009
Application for transfer of claim from QBD to TCC. Akenhead J considered an application to transfer a claim from the Chancery Division to the Technology and Construction Court. After reviewing the authorities, he said: ‘It is probably unnecessary to . .
Cited – Appleby Global Group Llc v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another ChD 26-Jan-2018
Claim by international firm of lawyers for breach of confidence against publishers who had received and published that information. The court now considered which division of the High Court should hear the claim.
Held: Rose J considered the . .
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 – Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray v Express Newspapers CA 7-May-2008
The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
Cited – Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 17-Jan-2013
The claimant sought an order to restrain the defendant from publishing embarrassing photographs taken at a private party. He had taken an assignment of the copyright from the photographer.
Held: The court considered whether the extent to which . .
Cited – Gulati and Others v MGN Limited ChD 21-May-2015
The claimants each claimed that their mobile phones had been hacked by or on behalf of the defendant newspaper group. The claims had now in substance been admitted, and the court set out to assess the damages (and aggravated damages) to be paid.
Cited – Appleby Global Group Llc v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another ChD 26-Jan-2018
Claim by international firm of lawyers for breach of confidence against publishers who had received and published that information. The court now considered which division of the High Court should hear the claim.
Held: Rose J considered the . .
Cited – CRE v Justis Publishing Ltd 20-Mar-2017
The defendant company published case law. The claimant’s case had been anonymised, but the defendant published a version of the judgment from which it was possible to identify him (or her). An order had been made to transfer the case to the County . .
Cited – Ali and Another v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd ChD 22-Feb-2018
The claimants said that a filming of their eviction from property was an invasion of their privacy.
Held: The Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information included in the Programme about which they . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Intellectual Property, Information, Torts – Other, Human Rights, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.616902

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 same application. Inventive excluded matter cannot count as a technical advance.

Fox LJ
[1989] RPC 561
Patents Act 1977 1(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Merrill Lynch’s Application ChD 1988
The court rejected an application for a patent for, inter alia, a ‘data processing system for making a trading market in at least one security in which the system proprietor is acting as principal’.
Held: Falconer J said: ‘In my judgment, . .
Cited – Genentech’s (Human Growth Hormone) Patent ChD 1987
The applicant sought a patent for a hormone: ‘It is trite law that you cannot patent a discovery, but if on the basis of that discovery you can tell people how it can be usefully employed, then a patentable invention may result. This in my view . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents PatC 18-Mar-2008
The company appealed against rejection of its patent application, the objection being as to the invention’s patentability. The EPO had granted a European Patent. . .
Cited – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks CA 13-Nov-2014
The inventor company appealed against rejection of its application for a patent for a computer program.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, the invention is no more than the computerisation of a process which . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.245706

Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler: CA 1986

Nature of Confidentiality in Information

The appellant plaintiff company had employed the defendant as sales manager. The contract of employment made no provision restricting use of confidential information. He left to set up in competition. The company now sought to prevent him using confidential information for this purpose.
Held: The information and the advantage flowing from it was obtained through dishonesty.
The court set down the obligations of employees after leaving their employment with regard to confidential information acquired by them.
Except in special circumstances, there is no general restriction on an ex-employee canvassing or doing business with the customers of his former employer. The employer can only succeed on the basis of an implied term if he can show improper use of confidential information tantamount to a trade secret. The court must consider: ‘(a) The nature of the employment. Thus employment in a capacity where ‘confidential’ material is habitually handled may impose a high obligation of confidentiality because the employee can be expected to realise its sensitive nature to a greater extent than if he were employed in a capacity where such material reaches him only occasionally or incidently. (b) The nature of the information itself. In our judgment the information will only be protected if it can be properly be classed as a trade secret or as material which, while not properly to be described as a trade secret, is in all the circumstances of such a highly confidential nature as to require the same protection as a trade secret eo nomine. . (c) Whether the employer impressed on the employee the confidentiality of the information . . (d) Whether the relevant information can be easily isolated from other information which the employee is free to use or disclose.’ and ‘It is clearly impossible to provide a list of matters which will qualify as trade secrets or their equivalent. Secret processes of manufacture provide obvious examples, but innumerable other pieces of information are capable of being trade secrets, though the secrecy of some information may be only short-lived. In addition, the fact that the circulation of certain information is restricted to a limited number of individuals may throw light on the status of the information and its degree of confidentiality.’
Neill LJ restated the classification provided at first instance. ‘(1) Where the parties are linked by a contract of employment, their obligations are governed by the contract between the employee and the employer.
(2) In the absence of an express term, the obligations of the employee in respect of the use and disclosure of information are governed by implied terms.
(3) While the employee remains in the employment of the employer, the implied obligations impose a duty of good faith or fidelity on the employee. The extent of the duty of good faith will vary according to the nature of the contract. The duty of good faith will be broken if the employee makes or copies a list of the customers of the employer for use after his employment ends or deliberately memorises such a list, even though (except in special circumstances) there is no general restriction on an ex-employee canvassing or doing business with customers of his former employer.
(4) After the termination of employment, the implied obligations becomes more limited in scope. A former employee is not allowed to use or disclose information which is of a sufficiently high degree of confidentiality so as to amount to a trade secret. The obligation does not extend to all information obtained during his employment and in particular may not cover information which is only confidential in the sense that unauthorised disclosure of such information to a third party while the employment subsisted would be a breach of the duty of good faith.
(5) In determining whether any item of information is protected by the implied term after termination of employment, all the circumstances would be taken into account and in particular the following factors would be considered :
(a) The nature of the employment-If the employment is in a capacity where confidential material is habitually handled this may impose a high obligation of confidentiality because the employee could be expected to realise the confidential nature of the information.
(b) The nature of the information itself-The information is only protected if it can properly be classified as a trade secret or material which is in all the circumstances of such a highly confidential nature as to require the same protection as a trade secret.
(c) Whether the employer impressed on the employee the confidentiality of the information. The attitude of the employer towards the information provides evidence which may assist in determining whether or not the information can properly be regarded as a trade secret.
(d) Whether the relevant information can be easily isolated from other information which the employee is free to use or disclose.
The Court did disagree with Goulding J that an employer can restrain the use of information in his second category (namely confidential information) by means of a restrictive covenant. A restrictive covenant will not be enforced unless it is reasonably necessary to protect a trade secret or to prevent some personal influence over customers being abused in order to entice them away.

Neill LJ
[1987] Ch 117, [1986] 1 All ER 625
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Faccenda Chicken v Fowler ChD 1984
The court was asked to restrain the plaintiff’s a former sales manager making use of information acquired during his employment which information the employer claimed to be confidential. F had set up a business in a similar field, the marketing of . .
Cited – Amber Size and Chemical Co Ltd v Menzel 1913
The implied obligation on a former employee not to use or disclose information may cover secret processes of manufacture such as chemical formulae. . .
Cited – Reid and Sigrist Ltd v Moss and Mechanism Ltd 1932
An employee can be obliged not to use or disclose information acquired by him during his employment after leaving it in respect of designs or special methods of construction. . .
Cited – Printers and Finishers Limited v Holloway 1965
The court considered the questions arising from the use of information acquired by an employee during his employment after that employment had ended, and noted that information the future use of which will not be restrained is information not . .
Cited – Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby HL 1916
For a covenant in restraint of trade to be treated as reasonable in the interests of the parties ‘it must afford no more than adequate protection to the benefit of the party in whose favour it is imposed.’ There is a need for the court to consider . .
Cited – Thomas Marshall (Exports) Ltd v Guinle ChD 1979
The managing director defendant had resigned before the end of the contractual term. There was an express covenant in his contract against using or disclosing the company’s confidential information during or after his employment. It was submitted . .

Cited by:
Cited – Poeton Industries Ltd and Another v Michael Ikem Horton CA 26-May-2000
The claimant sought damages and an injunction after their former employee set up in business, using, they said, information about their manufacturing procedures and customers obtained whilst employed by them. The defendant appealed the injunction . .
Cited – Thomas v Farr Plc and Another CA 20-Feb-2007
The employee, the former chairman of the company, appealed a finding that his contract which restricted his being employed for one year in the same field after termination, was valid and enforceable. The company had provided insurance services to . .
Cited – SG and R Valuation Service Co v Boudrais and others QBD 12-May-2008
The claimant sought to require the defendants not to work during their notice period to achieve the equivalent of garden leave despite there being no provision for garden leave in the contracts. It was said that the defendants had conspired together . .
Cited – Roger Bullivant Ltd v Ellis CA 1987
The plaintiffs sought various remedies against an ex-employee who had set up a company in competition with the plaintiffs. One was for breach of confidence in respect of a card index of customer contacts, a copy of which the first defendant had . .
Cited – Living Design (Home Improvements) Ltd for Interim Interdict SCS 19-Feb-1999
The petitioner company sought to enforce a post employment restrictive covenant agreed to by the respondent. He had given notice to leave, and the parties had setteled the departure with an additional restriction. The respondent denied that the . .
Cited – Vickerstaff v Edbro Plc CA 28-Jan-1997
The appellant’s employment had terminated in circumstances where he had threatened to publicise matters about the defendant’s activities, but had failed to co-operate with the company in investigating his allegations by particularising them.
Cited – Helmet Integrated Systems Ltd v Tunnard and others CA 15-Dec-2006
Whilst employed by the claimants as a salesman, the defendant came to want to develop his idea for a modular helmet suitable for fire-fighters and others. He took certain steps including showing the proposal confidentially to a competitor, and then . .
Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Cited – Phillips v Mulcaire SC 24-May-2012
The claimant worked as personal assistant to a well known public relations company. She alleged that the defendant had intercepted telephone message given by and left for her. The court was asked first as to whether the information amounted to . .
Cited – Lancashire Fires Ltd v S A Lyons and Co Ltd CA 1996
It was claimed that a loan to the employee from a customer of the employer coupled with an exclusive supply agreement by the employee as and when the competing business becomes operative was in breach of an non-compete clause.
Held: The . .
Cited – Ranson v Customer Systems Plc CA 27-Jun-2012
Lewison LJ considered the contractual duty of fidelity within an employment contract:
‘It is not disputed that an employee has an obligation of fidelity towards his employer. If the obligation is not expressed, it will invariably be implied.
Cited – Whitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage and Others ChD 4-Jul-2013
Whitmar claimed damages for breach of contract; an account of profits; damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or for infringement of its Database Rights under the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997; and for a permanent injunction . .
Cited – Ranson v Customer Systems Plc CA 27-Jun-2012
Lewison LJ considered the contractual duty of fidelity within an employment contract:
‘It is not disputed that an employee has an obligation of fidelity towards his employer. If the obligation is not expressed, it will invariably be implied.
Cited – Whitmar Publications Ltd v Gamage and Others ChD 4-Jul-2013
Whitmar claimed damages for breach of contract; an account of profits; damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or for infringement of its Database Rights under the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997; and for a permanent injunction . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Employment

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.200320

Regina v Johnstone: HL 22 May 2003

The defendant was convicted under the 1994 Act of producing counterfeit CDs. He argued that the affixing of the name of the artist to the CD was not a trade mark use, and that the prosecution had first to establish a civil offence before his act could become criminal. The prosecutor appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Held: Section 92 was designed to avoid the defence of describing goods as ‘genuine fakes’, but is to be interpreted as applying only when the offending sign is used as an indication of trade origin.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe: ”Trade mark use’ is a convenient shorthand expression for use of a registered trade mark for its proper purpose (that is, identifying and guaranteeing the trade origin of the goods to which it is applied) rather than for some other purpose.’ Whether the use of a name indicates the origin is a question of fact in each case. Satnam Singh is incorrect. 92(5) provides a defence where the person charged has a reasonable belief in the lawfulness of what he did. Those who act honestly and reasonably are not to be visited with criminal sanctions. It imposes on the accused the burden of proving the relevant facts on the balance of probability. That presumption requires justification. The more serious the punishment the greater the justification required. The persuasive burden placed on an accused by the defence is compatible with article 6(2).
Lord Nicholls: ‘But the essence of a trade mark has always been that it is a badge of origin. It indicates trade source: a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the proprietor of the mark.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[2003] UKHL 28, Times 29-May-2003, Gazette 03-Jul-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1736, [2003] 3 All ER 884, [2004] ETMR 2, [2003] HRLR 25, [2003] UKHRR 1239, [2003] FSR 42, [2003] 2 Cr App R 33, (2003) 167 JP 281, (2003) 167 JPN 453
House of Lords, Bailii
Trade Marks Act 1994 9 10 11 12 13 92 94, European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Johnstone CACD 2002
. .
Cited – Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecor Marketing AV and Others and One Other Action HL 4-Apr-2001
A business had grown, but the two founders split, and set up separate business. There was no agreement as to the use of the trading names and trade marks. The original law of Trade Marks prohibited bare exclusive licenses, licences excluding the . .
Cited – British Sugar Plc v James Roberston and Sons ChD 17-Feb-1996
The question was raised on whether, given its derivation from article 5 of the trade mark directive, non-trade mark use could be caught by sections 10(1) to (3).
Held: There was no trade mark infringement by the use of a common laudatory word. . .
Cited – Mothercare UK Ltd v Penguin Books CA 1988
The Trade Marks Act would only be concerned to restrict the use of a mark as a trade mark or in a trade mark sense, and should be construed accordingly. If descriptive words are legitimately registered [as a trade mark], there is still no reason why . .
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 – Silhouette International Schmied GmbH and Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH ECJ 16-Jul-1998
National Trade Mark rules providing for exhaustion of rights in Trade Marks for goods sold outside area of registration were contrary to the EU first directive on trade marks. A company could prevent sale of ‘grey goods’ within the internal market. . .
Cited – Zino Davidoff SA v A and G Imports Ltd etc ECJ 20-Nov-2001
An injunction was sought to prevent retailers marketing in the EEA products which had been obtained outside the EEA for resale within the EEA but outside the controlled distribution system.
Held: Silence alone was insufficient to constitute . .
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 – Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd ECJ 18-Jun-2002
The claimant developed a three headed rotary razor for men. They obtained registration of the arrangement as a trade mark. They sued the defendant for infringement, and the defendant countered challenging the validity of the registration, saying the . .
Cited – Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed ECJ 12-Nov-2002
The trade mark owner sought orders against a street vendor who sold articles using their marks. He asserted that the marks were not attached to show any quality, but were used by the fans as badges of allegiance.
Held: The function of a trade . .
Doubted – Torbay Council v Singh Admn 10-Jun-1999
The court was asked if the section 92(5) defence applied where the defendant does not know of the existence of the registered trade mark in question.
Held: The defence is not available in such a case. The court noted that section 92(5) speaks . .
Cited – Regina v Rhodes CACD 2002
Andrew Smith J: ‘No doubt in many cases the fact that a trader could ascertain whether a trade mark was registered by searching the register will make it extremely difficult to establish a belief involving ignorance of a registered mark is held on . .
Doubted – Regina v Keane CACD 2001
. .
Cited – Regina v S (Trade Mark Defence) (Roger Sliney v London Borough of Havering) CACD 20-Nov-2002
The defendant alleged that the offence of which had been convicted, under the 1994 Act, infringed his rights under article 6.2 in reversing the burden of proof.
Held: The principle that the duty of proof lay on the prosecution was subject to . .
Cited – Salabiaku v France ECHR 7-Oct-1988
A Zairese national living in Paris, went to the airport to collect, as he said, a parcel of foodstuffs sent from Africa. He could not find this, but was shown a locked trunk, which he was advised to leave alone. He however took possession of it, . .
Cited – Regina v Lambert HL 5-Jul-2001
Restraint on Interference with Burden of Proof
The defendant had been convicted for possessing drugs found on him in a bag when he was arrested. He denied knowing of them. He was convicted having failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that he had not known of the drugs. The case was . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Attorney General of Hong Kong v Lee Kwong-Kut PC 1993
(Hong Kong) In order to maintain the balance between the individual and the society as a whole, rigid and inflexible standards should not be imposed on the legislature’s attempts to resolve the difficult and intransigent problems with which society . .

Cited by:
Appealed to – Regina v Johnstone CACD 2002
. .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
Cited – Inter Lotto (Uk) Ltd v Camelot Group Plc CA 30-Jul-2003
The claimant and defendant had each operated using a the name ‘HotSpot’ for a name for its lottery. The respondent had registered the name as a trade mark. The claimant began to use the name first and claimed in passing off, and the respondent . .
Cited – Regina v Edwards, Denton and Jackson Hendley Crowley; Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2004) CACD 29-Apr-2004
The court considered references by the Attorney-General with regard to offences imposing a burden of proof upon the defendant. ‘An evidential burden will be discharged by a defendant by ensuring that there is some evidence before the court which . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Regina v Fraydon Navabi; Senait Tekie Embaye CACD 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted of not having an immigration document when presenting themselves for interview. They had handed their passports to the ‘agents’ who had assisted their entry.
Held: The jury should have been directed as to the . .
Cited – Regina v Makuwa CACD 23-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed her conviction for using a false instrument (a passport) intending someone else to accept it as genuine.
Held: Once she had brought forward sufficient evidence to support a claim to asylum status, it was then for the . .
Cited – Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc ChD 8-May-2006
The parties had several years ago compromised an action for trade mark infringement on the basis that the defendant would not use the Apple logo in association with areas of commercial activity, including the sale of ‘work whose principal content is . .
Cited – West Sussex County Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Kahraman Admn 13-Jun-2006
The complainant appealed dismissal of charges against the respondent of displaying for sale goods bearing marks identical to registered trade marks. The defendant asserted that he had reasonable grounds for belief that the goods were not counterfeit . .
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 – Chargot Limited (T/A Contract Services) and Others, Regina v HL 10-Dec-2008
The victim died on a farm when his dumper truck overturned burying him in its load.
Held: The prosecutor needed to establish a prima facie case that the results required by the Act had not been achieved. He need only establish that a risk of . .
Cited – Essex Trading Standards v Singh Admn 3-Mar-2009
The defendant had been accused of selling counterfeit trainer shoes. The prosecutor appealed against dismissal of the prosecution on the basis that the defenant had not known that they were counterfeit.
Held: The onus of proof lay on the . .
Cited – Watkins v Woolas QBD 5-Nov-2010
The petitioner said that in the course of the election campaign, the respondent Labour candidate had used illegal practices in the form of deliberately misleading and racially inflammatory material.
Held: The claim succeeded, and the election . .
Cited – Shepherd v The Information Commissioner CACD 18-Jan-2019
The defendant had been part of an organisation subject to an investigation of child sex abuse. He was cleared of involvement, but had disseminated the confidential reports containing sensitive personal data to support his contention that the process . .
Cited – Regina v C and Others CACD 1-Nov-2016
The court considered the existence of criminal liability under the 1994 Act for those importing from outside the EU and selling within the EU items marked with trade marks but not manufactured by them (counterfeits) or licensed by the trade mark . .
Cited – Regina v M and Others SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants pursued an interlocutory appeal. They were being prosecuted inter alia for the sale of items manufactured elsewhere under trade mark licence, but then imported within the EU. They argued that the criminal offence did not apply since . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Intellectual Property, Human Rights

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.182479

AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd: HL 1971

The 1949 Act denied protection to the features of a design that were solely dictated by a product’s technical function.
Held: A product’s configuration was solely dictated by its technical function if every feature of the design was determined by technical considerations, and did not qualify as a design.

[1971] FSR 572, [1972] RPC 103
Registered Designs Act 1949
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Limited CA 1970
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Lucasfilm Ltd and Others v Ainsworth and Another SC 27-Jul-2011
The claimant had produced the Star War films which made use of props, in particular a ‘Stormtrooper’ helmet designed by the defendant. The defendant had then himself distributed models of the designs he had created. The appellant obtained judgment . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.442604

Reckitt and Coleman Properties Ltd v Borden Inc: HL 1990

The plaintiffs claimed passing off of their ‘Jif Lemon’ trading style.
Held: It is no defence to an allegation of passing off that members of the public would not be misled if they were more literate, careful, perspicacious, wary or prudent. The court must look at the work as a whole and decide whether the latter representation is sufficient to ensure that a substantial body of readers will not be misled.
Lord Oliver stated the law on passing off: ‘[The plaintiff] must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the minds of the purchasing public by association with the identifying get-up (whether that consists simply of a brand name or trade description or the individual features of labelling or packaging) under which its particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get-up is recognised by the public as distinctive, specifically as the plaintiff’s goods or services. Secondly, he must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe the goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the plaintiff. For example, if the public is accustomed to rely upon a particular brand name in purchasing goods of a particular description, it matters not at all that there is little or no public awareness of the identity of the proprietor of the brand name. Thirdly, he must demonstrate that he suffers or in a quia timet action that he is likely to suffer damage by reason of the erroneous belief engendered by the defendant’s misrepresentation that the sources of the defendant’s goods or services is the same as the sources of those offered by the plaintiff.’

Lord Oliver, Lord Jauncey
[1990] 1 WLR 491, [1990] RPC 341, [1990] UKHL 12, [1990] 1 All ER 873
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Reckitt and Coleman Properties Ltd v Borden Inc 1987
Evidence as to the results of market research surveys was not admissible as expert evidence. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Scandecor Development Ab v Scandecor Marketing Ab and Another (No 2) CA 7-Oct-1998
Actions for passing off and Trade Mark infringement tended to end up as factual disputes resolvable only after a full enquiry. ‘Not a branch of law in which references to these cases is of an real assistance.’ . .
Applied – Asprey and Garrard Ltd v WRA (Guns) Ltd and Another CA 11-Oct-2001
The Asprey family had been in business for many years. Their business was incorporated, and later sold to the claimants. A member of the Asprey family sought to carry on new businesses through limited companies using the family name. Upon request, . .
Cited – Associated Newspapers Limited, Daily Mail and General Trust Plc v Express Newspapers (an Unlimited Company, Incorrectly Sued As Express Newspapers Limited) ChD 11-Jun-2003
The claimants sought to prevent the respondents from starting an evening newspaper entitled ‘THE MAIL’ as an infringement of their registered mark, and as passing off. In turn the defendant challenged the validity of the mark.
Held: The word . .
Cited – Alan Kenneth McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd PatC 21-Jan-1998
The claimant was a member of Parliament and an author. The defendant published a column which was said to give the impression that the claimant had written it. It was a parody. The claim was in passing off.
Held: The first issue was whether a . .
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 . .
Cited – Minimax Gmbh and Co Kg v Chubb Fire Ltd PatC 29-Jul-2008
Chubb sought to prevent the registration of a mark by the claimant arguing that its use would amount to passing off as against its own marks.
Held: There was insufficient evidence for the hearing officer to have found that Chubb had maintained . .
Cited – Lumos Skincare Ltd v Sweet Squared Ltd and Others PCC 10-May-2012
The claimant alleged passing off by the defendant in the use of the trading mark LUMOS for nail care products. . .
Cited – Bocacina Ltd v Boca Cafes Ltd IPEC 14-Oct-2013
The claimant alleged passing off by the defendant’s use of the name ‘Boca Bistro Cafe’, and subsequently ‘Bica Bistro Cafe’
Held: Where the defendant had changed its trading style during the proceedings it was possible, if the claimant . .
Cited – Moroccanoil Israel Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd IPEC 29-May-2014
The claimant asserted passing off and trade mark infringement by the defendant in respect of its own hair oil product and the defendant’s sale of ‘Miracle Oil’. The defendant counterclaimed in a threat action. . .
Cited – Starbucks (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

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.183037

Nikolajeva v Multi Protect OU: ECJ 22 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 9(3) and Article 102(1) – Obligation on an EU trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with acts of infringement – No application seeking such an order – Concept of ‘special reasons’ for not ordering such a prohibition – Concept of ‘reasonable compensation’ in respect of acts occurring after publication of an application for registration of an EU trade mark and before publication of the registration of the trade mark

ECLI:EU:C:2016:467, [2016] EUECJ C-280/15
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 993) 102(1)

European, Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.565861

HP Bulmer Ltd and Another v J Bollinger Sa and others: CA 22 May 1974

Necessity for Reference to ECJ

Lord Denning said that the test for whether a question should be referred to the European Court of Justice is one of necessity, not desirability or convenience. There are cases where the point, if decided one way, would shorten the trial greatly. But if decided the other way, it would mean that the trial would have to go its full length. It would not in those circumstances be ‘necessary’ for a preliminary ruling to be sought. When the facts are investigated, it might turn out to have been quite unnecessary. For this reason, Lord Denning concluded that as a rule it is only after the facts are ascertained that a determination can be made that a reference is necessary.
Denning described the effect of the EC Treaty: ‘The first and fundamental point is that the Treaty concerns only those matters which have a European element, that is to say, matters which affect people or property in the nine countries of the Common Market besides ourselves. The Treaty does not touch any of the matters which concern solely the mainland of England and the people in it. These are still governed by English law. They are not affected by the Treaty. But when we come to matters with a European element, the Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law. It is equal in force to any statute.’
. . And: ‘ In the task of interpreting the Treaty, the English Judges are no longer the final authority. They no longer carry the law in their breasts. They are no longer in a position to give rulings which are of binding force. The supreme tribunal for interpreting the Treaty is the European Court of Justice, at Luxembourg. Our Parliament has so decreed.’
Stephenson LJ discussed article 177 saying: ‘(i) The rulings which the European Court has jurisdiction to give under Article 177(1) are not strictly ‘preliminary’. They do not have to be given ‘in limine’ before the Court of the Member State crosses the threshold and begins to hear a dispute, but they can be given at any time before the Court finishes hearing the dispute by giving judgment. The ruling is in that sense ‘prejudicial’, not necessarily preliminary, though it may be.
(ii) Article 177(2) confers a power, whereas Article 177(3) imposes an obligation. A lower Court of a Member State ‘may’ request a ruling, a final Court ‘shall’. The contrast in the language is as clear as in the section of the English statute which this Court construed in Re Baker (1890) 44 Ch. Div. 262, and has the same effect: the lower Court is trusted with a discretion, the final Court is not. All attempts to blur the distinction between the power of the one and the duty of the other when a question is raised under Article 177(1) break down on the different wording of Article 177(2) and (3). Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 distinguishes powers from obligations, and so by this wording does Article 177, by whatever canon of construction it is interpreted. The European Court has always recognised that distinction; e.g. in Da Costa en Schaake N.V. and Others v. Nederlande Belasting -administratie (1963) 2 C.M.L.R. 224, 237; and has recently emphasised it and described the power given to the national Courts by Article 177(2) as conferring on them ‘the widest discretion’, which no domestic Court of Appeal can fetter: Firma Rheinmuhlen Dusseldorf v. Enfuhr und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide und Futtermittal, case 166/73 shortly reported in The Times Newspaper of 16th February 1974; to which my Lord has already referred,
(iii) The only questions which the Courts of a Member State can, or in some cases must, refer to the European Court are questions of law within Article 177(1) on which decisions are necessary to enable them to give judgment. If they consider that they can give judgment in the dispute in which the question is raised without deciding the question, they need not and indeed must not trouble the European Court by requesting a ruling or bringing the matter before it. Section 3(1) of the 1972 Act recognises that questions within Article 177(1) are questions of law and may be for determination by our Courts without referring them to the European Court. That is how the Courts of Member States have rightly proceeded, including English Judges, Mr. Justice Whitford among them: Lerose Ltd. v. Hawick Jersey International Ltd. (1972) 12 C.M.L.R. 83.’

Lord Denning MR, Stamp, Stephenson LJJ
[1974] EWCA Civ 14, [1974] 2 All ER 1226, [1974] 3 WLR 202, [1974] Ch 401
Bailii
Regulation 816/76 30, Regulation 817/70 12, European Community Act 1972 2(1) 83, Treaty of Rome 177
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Vine Products Ltd v Mackenzie and Co Ltd (the Sherry Case) ChD 1969
Assorted sherry producers and shippers to write to producers and importers of ‘British Sherry’ asking them to stop using the word ‘sherry’ other than in relation to wines emanating from the Jerez district of Spain. Those producers and importers to . .
Cited – Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd 1960
Intruders into the market brought into England a wine somewhat similar to Champagne. It had been produced in the Costa Brava district of Spain. They marketed it under the name ‘Spanish Champagne’. The French growers and shippers brought an action to . .
Cited – John Walker and Sons Ltd v Henry Ost and Co Ltd ChD 1970
The plaintiff whisky distiller claimed in passing-off against the defendant who supplied bottles and labels to a distiller in Ecuador.
Held: An injunction was granted. Having cited from Singer v Loog, the court added: ‘I would be slow to . .
Cited – Da Costa En Schaake Nv, Jacob Meijer Nv, Hoechst-Holland Nv v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration ECJ 27-Mar-1963
ECJ (Preliminary Ruling ) 1. The obligation imposed by the third paragraph of article 177 of the EEC Treaty upon national courts or tribunals of last instance may be deprived of its purpose by reason of the . .
Cited – Van Gend En Loos v Administratie Der Belastingen ECJ 5-Feb-1963
LMA The Dutch customs authorities had introduced an import charge in breach of Art.12 [Art.25] EC. This Article prohibits MS from introducing between themselves any new customs duties on imports or exports or any . .
Cited – Hessische Knappschaft v Maison Singer And Sons ECJ 9-Dec-1965
Procedure – 1. Since the right to determine the questions to be brought before the court devolves upon the court or tribunal of the member state alone, the parties may not change their tenor or have them declared to be without purpose.
2. The . .
Cited – Fratelli Grassi Fu Davide v Italian Finance Administration. (Questions Referred To The Court For A Preliminary Ruling) ECJ 15-Jun-1972
ECJ According to article 177 of the Treaty it is for the national court and not the parties to the main action to bring a matter before the court of justice.
Since the power to formulate the questions to be . .

Cited by:
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Aps Samex 1983
It is generally right for the court to find the facts before referring questions of law to the European Court of Justice.
Bingham J restated the four requirement sfor a reference set out in Bulmer, saying: ‘(1) Will the point be substantially . .
Cited – Fisher and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 14-Aug-2014
FTTTx Income Tax – Anti-avoidance – transfer of assets abroad code – s739 ICTA 1988 – appellants were shareholders in UK bookmaker which transferred its telebetting business to Gibraltar – purpose of avoiding . .
Applied – Coast Telecom Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 11-Apr-2012
Procedure – application for stay pending determination of references to CJEU – whether First-tier Tribunal bound by Mobilx – yes – whether determination of references would materially assist determination of appeal – no – whether expedient to order . .
Cited – The Number (UK) Ltd and Another v Office of Communications CAT 24-Nov-2008
. .
Cited – Vehicle and Operator Services Agency v Jones (Nell) Admn 5-Oct-2005
The Agency appealed against dismissal of its allegation that the defendant had wrongfully withdrawn his tachograph record. He had lifted the top of the tachograph which had the effect if disengaging the marker without actually removing the record . .
Cited – Fage UK Ltd and Another v Chobani UK Ltd and Another CA 28-Jan-2014
Lewison LJ said: ‘Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact, but also to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Intellectual Property, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.262729

Feather v The Queen: 1865

Mr Feather had invented way of protecting ships against shot and obtained an exclusive patent. The Crown then had a ship constructed in a way that infringed the patent. As patentee Mr Feather asked for recompense; by petition of right he asked for pounds 10,000 as compensation for the damage he had suffered. Much of the case was concerned with whether an exclusive patent granted by the Crown barred free use by the Crown of the method revealed by the patent.
Held: It did not. As to whether a petition of right could be used against the Crown in respect of the alleged wrong, the court (obiter) held that Tobin was correct.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘Now, apart altogether from the question of procedure, a petition of right in respect of a wrong, in the legal sense of the term, shews no right to legal redress against the Sovereign. For the maxim that the King can do no wrong applies to personal as well as to political wrongs; and not only to wrongs done personally by the Sovereign, if such a thing can be supposed to be possible, but to injuries done to a subject by the authority of the Sovereign. For, from the maxim that the King cannot do wrong it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the King cannot authorize wrong. For to authorize a wrong to be done is to do a wrong; inasmuch as the wrongful act, when done, becomes, in law, the act of him who directed or authorized it to be done. It follows that a petition of right which complains of a tortious act by the Crown, or by a public servant by the authority of the Crown, discloses no matter of complaint which can entitle the petitioner to redress. As in the eye of the law no such wrong can be done, so, in law, no right to redress can arise; and the petition, therefore, which rests on such a foundation falls at once to the ground. Let it not, however, be supposed that a subject sustaining a legal wrong at the hands of the minister of the Crown is without a remedy. As the Sovereign cannot authorize wrong to be done, the authority of the Crown would afford no defence to an action brought for an illegal act committed by an officer of the Crown.’ and

‘It is established on the best authority that, in construing grants from the Crown, a different rule of construction prevails from that by which grants from one subject to another are to be construed. In a grant from one subject to another, every intendment is to be made against the grantor, in favour of the grantee, in order to give full effect to the grant; but in grants from the Crown an opposite rule prevails. Nothing passes except that which is expressed, or which is matter of necessity and unavoidable intendment in order to give effect to the plain and undoubted intention of the grant. And in no species of grant does this rule of construction more especially obtain than in grants which emanate from and operate in derogation of, the prerogative of the Crown.’

Cockburn CJ
(1865) 6 B and S 257
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tobin v The Queen 1864
The Commander of a Queen’s ship, employed in the suppression of the slave trade on the coast of Africa, seized a schooner belonging to the suppliant, which he suspected of being engaged in slave traffic. It being inconvenient to take the ship to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Roberts v Swangrove Estates Ltd and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The court heard preliminary applications in a case asserting acquisition of land by adverse possession, the land being parts of the foreshore of the Severn Estuary.
Held: A person may acquire title to part of the bed of a tidal river by . .
Cited – Crown Estate Commissioners v Roberts and Another ChD 13-Jun-2008
The defendant claimed ownership as Lord Marcher of St Davids of historical rights in foreshores in Pembrokeshire. The claimants sought removal of his cautions against first registration.
Held: Lewison J explored the history of manorial . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.267402

The Author of A Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd: QBD 16 Jun 2009

The claimant, the author of an internet blog (‘Night Jack’), sought an order to restrain the defendant from publishing his identity.
Held: To succeed, the claimant would have to show that there would be a legally enforceable right to maintain anonymity, in the absence of a genuine breach of confidence, by suppressing the fruits of detective work. He had failed to do this.
Eady J said: ‘the court nowadays adopts a two stage approach, when addressing claims based upon the publication of allegedly private information in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. One must ask, first, whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the particular information in question and, if so, then move to the second stage of enquiring whether there is some countervailing public interest such as to justify overriding that prima facie right.’ The action of blogging is essentially a public one. One reason for the claimant seeking this protection was also to prevent police disciplinary proceedings. That argument was at best unattractive. The defendant’s own human rights were engaged. The claimant’s identity did not have the necessary ‘quality of confidence’. It was unlikely that the claimant would succeed at trial, and the injunction was not sustained.

Eady J
[2009] EWHC 1358 (QB), [2009] EMLR 22
Bailii
Human Rights Act 1998 812
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Printers and Finishers Limited v Holloway 1965
The court considered the questions arising from the use of information acquired by an employee during his employment after that employment had ended, and noted that information the future use of which will not be restrained is information not . .
Cited – Napier and Another v Pressdram Ltd CA 19-May-2009
The claimant solicitors appealed against the refusal to grant them an injunction to prevent the publication of the outcome of a complaint against them to the Law society, and of the Ombudsman’s report. They said that the material remained . .
Cited – Ash and Another v McKennitt and others CA 14-Dec-2006
The claimant was a celebrated Canadian folk musician. The defendant, a former friend, published a story of their close friendship. The claimant said the relationship had been private, and publication infringed her privacy rights, and she obtained an . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Mahmood v Galloway and Another QBD 5-Apr-2006
The claimant was an investigative journalist used to working under cover. He sought to restrain the defendants from publicising his image on the internet on their web-site. The defendants sought to have lifted the without notice injunction granted . .
Cited – Cream Holdings Limited and others v Banerjee and others HL 14-Oct-2004
On her dismissal from the claimant company, Ms Banerjee took confidential papers revealing misconduct to the local newspaper, which published some. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent any further publication. The defendants argued that the . .
Cited – Regina v Chief Constable of North Wales Police and Others Ex Parte Thorpe and Another; Regina v Chief Constable for North Wales Police Area and others ex parte AB and CB CA 18-Mar-1998
Public Identification of Pedophiles by Police
AB and CB had been released from prison after serving sentences for sexual assaults on children. They were thought still to be dangerous. They moved about the country to escape identification, and came to be staying on a campsite. The police sought . .
Cited – Von Hannover v Germany ECHR 24-Jun-2004
Princess Caroline of Monaco who had, at some time, received considerable attention in the media throughout Europe, complained at the publication of photographs taken of her withour her permission.
Held: There was no doubt that the publication . .
Cited – Coco v A N Clark (Engineers) Ltd ChD 1968
Requirememts to prove breach of confidence
A claim was made for breach of confidence in respect of technical information whose value was commercial.
Held: Megarry J set out three elements which will normally be required if, apart from contract, a case of breach of confidence is to . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights, Intellectual Property

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.346927

British Telecommunications Plc and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills: Admn 20 Apr 2011

The claimant sought judicial review of legislative provisions requiring Internet Service Providers to become involved in regulation of copyright infringements by its subscribers. They asserted that the Act and proposed Order were contrary to European law.
Held: The request was refused. No obligation had yet fallen on the claimant, and the exact form and rules had not been settled. The anticipated obligations did properly relate to copyright infringement, and so did not go beyond obligations under European law.
Following the decision of the CJEU in Case C-275/05 Promusicae, held that the grounds for derogation under Article 15(1) of the e-Privacy Directive include all the legitimate aims listed in Article 13(1) of the Data Protection Directive.
Kenneth Parker J said: ‘It is not disputed that technical means of avoiding detection are available, for those knowledgeable and skilful enough to employ them. However, the central difficulty of this argument is that it rests upon assumptions about human behaviour. Experts can seek to establish a profile of those who engage in P2P file sharing, and their various reasons for doing so, and may then attempt to predict how these users may be likely to respond if confronted with the kind of regime that the DEA enacts. In theory, some may cease or substantially curtail their unlawful activities, substituting or not, for example, lawful downloading of music; others may simply seek other means to continue their unlawful activities, using whatever technical means are open. The final outcome is uncertain because it is notoriously difficult accurately to predict human behaviour’

Kenneth Parker J
[2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin)
Bailii
Copyright (Initial Obligations) (Sharing of Costs) Order 2011, Digital Economy Act 2010, Technical Standards Directive (Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998, Electronic Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, OJ 2000 L No 178), Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive, Communications Act 2003, Data Protection Act 1998, Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000 (SI 2000/417)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Google France and Google v Louis Vuitton Malletier (Intellectual Property) ECJ 23-Mar-2010
ECJ Trade marks Internet Search engine – Keyword advertising – Display, on the basis of keywords corresponding to trade marks, of links to sites of competitors of the proprietors of those marks or to sites . .
Cited – Commission v Germany (Rec 1994,p I-2039) (Judgment) ECJ 1-Jun-1994
ECJ 1. In proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, it is for the Commission to judge at what time it will bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations; the considerations which determine its choice of . .
Cited – Norwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
Cited – Liga Portuguesa De Futebol Profissional and Another (Freedom To Provide Services) ECJ 14-Oct-2008
ECJ (Opinion of Advocate General Bot) Legislation of a Member State granting a single entity an exclusive right to organise and operate betting on the internet ‘Technical regulation’ within the meaning of . .
Cited – CIA Security International v Signalson and Securitel ECJ 30-Apr-1996
1. Under the procedure provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty, it is for the national court to assess the scope of national provisions and the manner in which they are to be applied. Since the national court is best placed to assess, in view of . .
Cited – Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU ECJ 29-Jan-2008
ECJ Information society Obligations of providers of services Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data Obligation of disclosure Limits Protection of the confidentiality of electronic communications . .
Cited – Productores de Musica de Espana (Promusicae) v Telefonica de Espana SAU ECJ 18-Jul-2007
The provisions of article 13, as referred to in article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector ([2002] OJ L201/37) must be interpreted as . .
Cited – Telecom Italia v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero delle Comunicazioni (Freedom To Provide Services) ECJ 21-Feb-2008
ECJ Telecommunications services Directive 97/13/EC Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 Fees and charges for general authorisations and individual licences Obligation on former holders of exclusive rights Temporary . .
Cited – Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (1) CA 3-Nov-2000
The administrative charges for entering into a loan were not to be included in the loan, but rather as an item entering into the total charge for credit. To hold otherwise went against accounting practice, would disguise the cost of the loan, and . .

Cited by:
Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, European, Information

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.434869