NIPC Law

Lobster Author Bart Btaun   Licence Public Domain   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Pat Treacy)  Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) (4 March 2024) On 16 Jan 2024, Ms Pat Treacy, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, heard the following applications in an action for breach of contract and patent and trade mark infringement. The claimants applied to strike out certain paragraphs of the first and second defendants' witness statements.  Alternatively, they sought permission to reply to those paragraphs if those passages were not struck out. The defendants also sought permission to adduce additional evidence in reply to one of the claimants' witness statements.  Ms Treacy handed down her judgment in   Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and another Land and other s [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) on 4 March 2024. The Litigation The first and second defendants are Richard Andrew Land an

Royal Courts of Justice Author Aurelian Guichard   Licence CC BY-SA Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Recorder Michaels )  Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd and another v Made Television Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 405 (IPEC) (29 Feb 2024) This was an application by the defendants to a debt recovery and copyright infringement claim for permission to file and serve an Amended Defence and Counterclaim. The claimants offered to consent to amendments to the Defence but not to the launch of a counterclaim.  The application was heard by Recorder Michaels at a case management conference on 21 Feb 2024.  The recorder handed down her judgment on 29 Feb 2024. The claimants referred the recorder to CPR 17.1 (2) (b) , CPR 20.4 (2) (b ) and paras [40] to [42] of Lady Justice Asplin's judgment in Elite Property Holdings Ltd and Another v Barclays Bank Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 2212: "[40] …it is important to bear in mind that the ove

Author Abhishekptlbbk Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal ( Lord Justice Nugee, Lady Justice Elizabeth Laing and Lord Justice Birss) J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and Another [ 2024] EWCA Civ 276 (22 March 2024) In  JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (04 July 2022), JC Bamford Excavators Ltd  ("JCB") sued Manitou UK Ltd and Manitou BF SA ("Manitou") for patent infringement.  Manitou counterclaimed for revocation of JCB's patents. Manitou.  The action and counterclaim came on before His Honour Judge Hacon who held that one of JCB's patents was valid and infringed but revoked the rest. I discussed His Honour's judgment in  Patents - J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd   on 7 March 2023. The Appeal JCB appealed against the revocation of European patent 2 263 965 B9 for a Method of Operating a Working Machine (“EP 965”) with Judge Hacon's permissi

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal  (Lord Justices Lewison, Arnold and Birss)  Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Anothe r (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024) This is the third of my supplementary articles on Lord Justice Jackson's judgment in Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Anothe r (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024). I explained the reasons for these supplementary articles in the second paragraph of Lord Justice Arnold's Guidance on Trade Mark Law in the Lidl v Tesco Appeal on 25 March 2024. In this article, I discuss Lord Justice Arnold's guidance on copyright which he set out in paras [38] to [44] of his judgment. Lord Justice Arnold acknowledged at para [38] that little dispute before the judge as to the applicable principles of copyright law but he chose to comment on them anyway because Mrs Justice Joanna Smith "did not have the benefit of  t he subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal] in Wright

Author: Paul Hurst Licence CC   BY-SA 2.5 Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison, Arnold and Birss) Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Anothe r (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024 ) This is the second of my supplementary articles on Lord Justice Jackson's judgment in   Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Anothe r (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024). I explained the reasons for these supplementary articles in the second paragraph of  Lord Justice Arnold's Guidance on Trade Mark Law in the Lidl v Tesco Appeal   yesterday.  In this article, I shall discuss Lord Justice Arnold's guidance on passing off  which he set out in paras [27] to [35] of his judgment. The learned Lord Justice said in para [28] that the fundamental principle underlying the law of passing off may be simply stated in contemporary language as "no person may misrepresent their goods or services to be t

Sir Richard Arnold Author Dakej2point3   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0  Deed   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Lewison, Arnold and Birss) Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Anothe r (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024) Yesterday I discussed the Court of Appeal's judgment in  Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Anothe r  (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024) in Trade Marks - The Appeal in Lidl v Tesco .  I explained that Lord Justice Arnold had delivered the lead judgment which consisted of 196 paragraphs.  He set out the grounds of the appeal by Tesco Stores Ltd and Tesco Plc ("Tesco") against Mrs Justice Joanna Smith's findings on trade mark infringement and passing off at para [122] and its grounds of appeal against her findings on copyright infringement at para [188]. Paras [123] to [161] addressed the appeal against the judge's findings on passing off, paras [162] to [170]