Intellectual Property in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Norwich Pharmacal Company v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Jun 1973

    They seem to me to point to a very reasonable principle that if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers.

  • Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd (t/a Colmans of Norwich) v Borden Inc. and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 08 Feb 1990

    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 that goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the plaintiff.

  • Al-Rawi & others v The Security Service & others
    • Supreme Court
    • 13 Jul 2011

    Similarly, where the whole object of the proceedings is to protect a commercial interest, full disclosure may not be possible if it would render the proceedings futile. It is commonplace to deal with the issue of disclosure by establishing "confidentiality rings" of persons who may see certain confidential material which is withheld from one or more of the parties to the litigation at least in its initial stages.

  • Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 26 May 2006

    I doubt, however, whether the decision to have or not to have a trial of the action is much affected by the fact that it is heard by a specialist judge. I see no objection, for example, to the use of judges or deputy judges, who are not intellectual property specialists, to hear and decide applications for summary judgment in this field. I mention this topic and wish to say a little more about it for two reasons.

    I also wish to say a few words about the litigation expectations and tactics of claimants and defendants. Claimants start civil proceedings (including intellectual property actions) in the expectation that they will win and often in the belief that the defendant has no real prospect of success. So the defence put forward may be seen as a misconceived, costly and time-wasting ploy designed to dodge an inevitable judgment for as long as possible.

  • Biogen Inc. v Medeva Plc
    • House of Lords
    • 31 Oct 1996

    His expressed findings are always surrounded by a penumbra of imprecision as to emphasis, relative weight, minor qualification and nuance ( as Renan said, la v�rit� est dans une nuance), of which time and language do not permit exact expression, but which may play an important part in the judge's overall evaluation.

  • Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd
    • Court of Appeal
    • 28 Ene 2014

    It seems to me that the reason why it is necessary for the protected class of goods to be clearly defined, or defined with reasonable precision, is because the goodwill that the tort seeks to protect is a species of property. The boundaries are needed in order to delineate both what is protected and also who shares in the ownership of the protected subject matter. The action in passing off is directed against those who cross the boundary.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries