Infringement in UK Law
-
C.B.S. Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc
“
My Lords, I accept that a defendant who procures a breach of copyright is liable jointly and severally with the infringer for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the infringement. The defendant is a joint infringer; he intends and procures and shares a common design that infringement shall take place. A defendant may procure an infringement by inducement, incitement or persuasion.
-
Interflora Inc. (a company incorporated under the laws of Michigan, United States) and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc
“
To the contrary, if, having regard to the perceptions and expectations of the average consumer, the court concludes that a significant proportion of the relevant public is likely to be confused such as to warrant the intervention of the court then we believe it may properly find infringement.
-
Mölnlycke A.B. v Procter & Gamble Ltd
“
Conversely the English court could not entertain a claim for the infringement of a German patent. English patent law as embodied in the Patents Act 1977 is founded on international convention, not just European Community convention, but, subject to certain special provisions of the Act, its application by the English court is a matter of English law.
-
Thomson Holidays Ltd v Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd
“
In my view that task should be carried out so as to limit the specification so that it reflects the circumstances of the particular trade and the way that the public would perceive the use. If the test of infringement is to be applied by the court having adopted the attitude of such a person, then I believe it appropriate that the court should do the same when deciding what is the fair way to describe the use that a proprietor has made of his mark.
-
Compass Publishing BV v Compass Logistics Ltd
“
It is frequently said by trade mark lawyers that when the proprietor's mark and the defendant's sign have been used in the market place but no confusion has been caused, then there cannot exist a likelihood of confusion under Article 9.1(b) or the equivalent provision in the Trade Marks Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act"), that is to say s. 10(2). In the latter it must consider notional use on a scale where direct competition between the proprietor and the alleged infringer could take place.
-
Hotel Cipriani SRL and Others v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd and Others
“
The applicant may believe that he has a superior right to registration and use of the mark. For example, it is not uncommon for prospective claimants who intend to sue a prospective defendant for passing off first to file an application for registration to strengthen their position. Even if the applicant does not believe that he has a superior right to registration and use of the mark, he may still believe that he is entitled to registration.
-
Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham Plc (No.2)
“
If I may summarise the effect of these two well-known statements, the matter relied upon as prior art must disclose subject-matter which, if performed, would necessarily result in an infringement of the patent. That may be because the prior art discloses the same invention. In that case there will be no question that performance of the earlier invention would infringe and usually it will be apparent to someone who is aware of both the prior art and the patent that it will do so.
- Trade Mark Infringement as a Criminal Offence
- Computer Programs and Copyright: More Exceptions to Infringement
-
Copyright in a networked world: ethics and infringement
The statutes themselves are not the only basis for deciding whether an intellectual property rights infringement has occurred. Ethical judgments can also influence judicial rulings. This column loo...
-
International Infringement of Software as Intellectual
Property
The legal and economic value of intellectual property is under seige in much of the world. Creators of software find that, throughout much of the industrialized and Third World, their products are ...
- Copyright Infringement ' Link Available Here
-
European Commission Pursues Infringement Proceedings Against UK
On October 29, 2009, the European Commission (the “Commission”) proceeded to the second phase of infringement proceedings against the UK relating to the UK’s implementation of EU e-privacy and pers...
- The IP Podcast (Ep:11) - Patent Infringement (Part 1)
- BIPC Releases Report On Damages In Patent Infringement Cases