World IP Day Issue

Welcome to Issue No. 4?- April 2034

World Intellectual Property Day is a worldwide festival of creativity, enterprise and innovation that takes place on or around 26 April of every year. In this issue, I discuss the celebrations planned in Wales, Yorkshire and elsewhere.? I also wish all my readers a very happy World Intellectual Property Day.

Since the last issue, there have been important judgments from the Court of Appeal on copyright, fiduciary duty, licensing, passing off, patents and trade marks. ? There is an interesting decision by a deputy judge of the Chancery Division on comparative advertising. ? The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”) has considered its cost/benefit analysis rule in two cases and the post-Brexit rules for service in Germany in another.? Though not a recent case I have also discussed an important judgment of the Court of Appeal on joinder as it has been cited in several of the cases that I have discussed recently.? As that case related to an anticipated photographic copyright infringement action, I have written about the damages that have been awarded for that type of infringement in recent years.

This newsletter also covers WIPO’s report on IP-backed funding, the launch of the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II, Manchester University's Funding Guide and the British Library’s Inventors Club.? I mention the Menai Science Park’s online and in-person seminar on IP and the Welsh Government’s Well-Being Goals which I shall chair on 26 April 2024 and my invitation to speak at Vincents Solicitors’ IP seminar on the topic “IP is not just a nice-to-have in good times" on 16 May? 2024. Lastly, I report on a remarkable presentation by Rita Britton, founder of Pollyanna at The Business Village on 8 April 2024.

Copyright

Subsistence and Infringement

Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Another (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024)

The reason for the picture of Medusa is that Tesco Stores and Tesco Plc (“Tesco”) argued that the creation of the following logo was analogous to adding a blue background to Caravaggio’s painting.

Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG claimed that copyright subsisted in the artwork for that logo. It claimed to be the owner of that copyright. Its subsidiary Lidl Great Britain Ltd. was its exclusive licensee.? Those two companies (“Lidl”) objected to Tesco’s use of the following sign to promote its Clubcard Prices scheme on the ground inter alia that such use infringed their copyright.

Lidl sued Tesco for copyright and trade mark infringement and passing off.? The action came before Mrs Justice Joanna Smith who found in favour of Lidl on all three grounds (see Lidl Great Britain Limited and another v Tesco Stores Ltd and another [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch) (19 April 2023)).? I discussed her judgment in Trade Marks - Lidl v Tesco on 1 May 2023.

Tesco appealed. ? It argued that copyright could not subsist in the artwork for the logo but, if it did, Tesco had not copied a substantial part of the work. Lord Justice Arnold who delivered the Court of Appeal’s lead judgment rejected Tesco’s first argument.? Referring to the Caravaggio example, he said at para [191] of his judgment:?

"In my view this illustration does not demonstrate the absence of any creativity on the part of the author(s) of the Stage 3 Work, but the converse. Although all that has been added to the Stage 2 Work by the author(s) of the Stage 3 Work is the square framing and the blue background, these elements interact with the elements which were already present. Any painter will confirm that placing one colour against another changes the viewer's perception of both. So too does placing one shape within another. Furthermore, as counsel for Lidl pointed out, the author(s) of the Stage 3 Work did not merely choose to surround the Stage 2 Work with a blue square, but also made other choices, namely (i) the precise shade of blue, (ii) the positioning of the Stage 2 Work centrally within the square and (iii) the distance between the edge of the Stage 2 Work and the edges of the square. The degree of creativity involved in the creation of the Stage 3 Work may have been low, but it was not a purely mechanical exercise, nor was the result dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which left no room for creative freedom."

However, the Court accepted the second point.? Although the artwork was sufficiently original to attract copyright, the scope of protection conferred by that copyright was narrow. Tesco had not copied at least two of the elements that made the artwork original, namely the shade of blue and the distance between the circle and the square.? Their lordships concluded that Tesco had not copied a substantial part of the copyright work.

Though the Court of Appeal allowed Tesco’s appeal against copyright infringement it upheld the rest of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith's judgment. ? I discuss the passing off and trade mark infringement claims below. ?

I have written about the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another. v Tesco Stores Ltd and Another (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024) in Trade Marks - The Appeal in Lidl v Tesco 24 March 2024 NIPC Law.? Lord Justice Arnold reviewed the copyright authorities and delivered some helpful guidance which I summarized in The Lidl v Tesco Appeal - Lord Justice Arnold on Copyright? 27 March 2024 NIPC Law.

Damages for Infringing Copyright in Photographs?

In the February 2024 issue of this newsletter, I discussed how to bring and defend IP claims in the Small Claims Track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”).? This jurisdiction offers a relatively low-cost and risk-free option for those seeking redress for infringement of their intellectual property rights.? According to a Record of Damages Awarded in IPEC Small Claim Track Cases 1 April 2018 - 31 March 2019 published by the Intellectual Property Office in 2020 which I? analysed in Damages Awards in the IPEC Small Claims Track on 17 June 2020 claimants seeking damages for infringement of copyright in photographs appear to be the main users of that option. ? Elsewhere in this newsletter I mention the Court of Appeal’s judgment in? The Welsh Ministers v Price and another (Rev 1) [[2017] WLR(D) 749, [2018] BCC 93, [2017] EWCA Civ 1768, [2018] 1 All ER (Comm) 1108, [2018] 1 WLR 738, [2018] 2 All ER 860, [2018] 1 BCLC 1, [2018] WLR 738 which concerned an application by the intended defendants to an action for the infringement of copyright in a photograph of the poet Dylan Thomas and his bride. The Visit Wales website is operated by a team within the Welsh Government that is responsible for the development and promotion of the visitor economy in Wales.? The team reproduced an image of Dylan Thomas that had been cropped from a photo of the poet and his bride shortly after their wedding without the copyright owner’s licence. ? The company that owned that copyright had been struck off the register of companies ? The Welsh Ministers applied unsuccessfully for permission to join proceedings to restore the company to the register and thereby forestall the copyright infringement claim. After its restoration to the register, the copyright owner assigned its copyright to Pablo Star Media Ltd.? The assignee sued one Richard Bowen who had reproduced the photo of Dylan Thomas that had appeared on the Visit Wales website on another website to promote a holiday cottage letting business run by his parents.

Pablo Star Media’s action came before Richard Vary sitting as a deputy district judge of IPEC.? Mr Bowen did not contest liability but he did resist the company’s claim for damages.? Deputy District Judge Vary (as he then was) awarded the company ￡250 in damages plus ￡3 interest on the user principle but declined to award additional damages under s.97 (2) (b) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or costs.? He considered the company to have been in breach of the overriding objective by threatening litigation in the Irish Republic and the USA.? Instead, Mr Vary ordered Pablo Star Media to bear Mr Bowen's travelling costs of attending the trial which he assessed at ￡164.10. He ordered Mr Bowen to pay the balance of ￡88.90 to the claimant company.?

The claimant appealed to the Enterprise Judge on the following grounds:

"Damages

(1) The approach to damages on the 'user principle' was unreasonable and failed to take into account the multiple acts of infringement by Mr Bowen.

Flagrancy

(2) The conclusion that the infringement was not flagrant was contrary to the authorities on this aspect of the law.

(3) The award was not dissuasive, as required by art. 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC ("the Enforcement Directive").

Costs

(4) Bringing proceedings in other jurisdictions was Media's right, particularly under EU law, and should have had no bearing on costs. The overriding objective was therefore wrongly applied to the order on costs.

(5) The District Judge wrongly took into account an offer of settlement of ￡250 by Mr Bowen.

(6) The District Judge asked the parties about Part 36 Offers and without prejudice offers before giving his judgment."

The appeal was heard by His Honour Judge Hacon? In Pablo Star Media Ltd v Bowen [2017] EWHC 2541 (IPEC) (13 Oct 2017) he said that he might not have made the same costs order but he could see no error of principle to justify his disturbing the deputy district judge’s decision.? He dismissed the appeal. ? I discussed his judgment in Copyright in Photographs - Pablo Star Media Ltd v Bowen on 15 Oct 2017 in NIPC Law.

Higher amounts for copyright infringement were awarded by His Honour Judge Birss QC (as he then was) in Hoffman v Drug Abuse Resistance Education (UK) Ltd [2012] EWPCC 2 (19 Jan 2012) and Judge Hacon in Absolute Lofts South West London Ltd v Artisan Home Improvements Ltd and Another [2015] EWHC 2608 (IPEC) (14 Sept 2015).? In Hoffman, the claimant sought ?￡28,500 based on an estimated revenue of ￡250 per photograph per year over 4 years together with a further 50% uplift on top for the use of the photographs as thumbnails. The judge thought that was too high. He assessed damages at ￡10,000.? The measure of damages was the sum that a willing user would have agreed to pay a willing photographer to post the photographs on its website.? As the photographs were of drugs their likely market would have been charities and the public sector.? I discussed that case in Damages for Infringement of Copyright in Photographs: Hoffmann v Drug Abuse Resistance on 25 Jan 2012.

In Absolute Lofts, the defendants reproduced photographs of the claimant’s work which the claimant had commissioned from its website and reproduced them on their own.? The defendants removed the photos from their website and replaced them with stock photos that they purchased from Shutterstock for ￡300.? Judge Hacon awarded the claimant compensatory damages of ￡300 and additional damages of ￡6,000. ? I discussed that case in Damages for infringing Copyright in Photographs - Absolute Lofts v Artisan Home Improvements on 22 Sep 2015.

The Record of Damages Awarded in IPEC Small Claim Track Cases 1 April 2018 - 31 March 2019? which I mentioned above summarized 13 judgments of the Small Claims Track during that period. ? All but 2 were actions for copyright infringement.? Of the 11 judgments for copyright infringement, 9 were for reproducing a photograph on the World Wide Web, one was for infringing some other artistic copyright and the other was for infringing literary copyright in an article. Some 5 of those judgments were judgments in default.? The highest award for photography copyright infringement was ￡1,735 where 20 images had appeared on the internet for about 2 months.?

Anyone contemplating proceedings in the IPEC Small Claims Track may wish to read Small IP Claims and the other materials referred to in that article. ?

Fiduciary Duties

Quantum Advisory Ltd v Quantum Actuarial LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 247 (14 March 2024)

The defendant limited liability partnership, Quantum Actuarial LLP, agreed to take over the office space, employees and branding but not the goodwill of a business formerly called? Quantum Advisory Ltd. and to provide actuarial services to Quantum Advisory’s clients.? The parties agreed that the defendant could use Quantum Advisory Ltd.’s branding to develop new business for itself. Shortly after that agreement, Quantum Advisory transferred its undertaking to a company called Pascal Company Solutions Ltd.? ? Quantum Advisory and Pascal swapped corporate names. The company formerly known as Quantum Advisory novated its agreement with the defendant to the company previously known as Pascal.? That company later became the claimant in these proceedings.? For several years the defendant served the claimant’s clients and developed some business of its own (which it was entitled to do) under what was now the claimant’s brand.? The relationship broke down when the defendant registered the claimant’s corporate name and a stylized “Q” as trade marks without the claimant’s knowledge or consent.? The claimant sued the defendant for breach of fiduciary duty and the substitution of the claimant as the proprietor of the marks under s.10B of the Trade Marks Act 1994.? The action came on before His Honour Judge Keyser KC sitting as a judge of the High Court.? His Honour held Inter alia that the defendant was the claimant’s fiduciary,? The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal,? After considering the authorities and the novated agreement the Lord Justices held that the trial judge had been right to conclude that a fiduciary relationship subsisted.? Moreover, nothing in the novated contract had modified that relationship.

One of the consequences of the Court of Appeal’s finding that the defendant was the claimant’s fiduciary was that an appeal by the claimant against Judge Keyser’s refusal to transfer the registration of the stylized “Q” mark to the claimant succeeded.? The Court held that the registration was a breach of the defendant's fiduciary duty. I have discussed this appeal in Fiduciary Duties and Trade Marks - The Appeal in Quantum Advisory Ltd. v Quantum Actuarial LLP 2 April 2024 NIPC Wales.

Passing off

Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Another (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024)

I have already discussed this case above.? Lidl used the following marks in its business.

They contended that Tesco’s use of the Clubcard signs shown above amounted to an actionable misrepresentation. ? Mrs Justice Joanna Smith agreed.? She held at para [266] of her judgment:

?

"that by reason of its use of the CCP signs in connection with the Tesco business and goods, Tesco has misrepresented 'that products sold by Tesco share the qualities of those of Lidl, including in particular, that the goods offered for sale by Tesco in connection with the sign are of an equivalent good standard, and sold at the same or equivalent price, as similar products sold in the course of the Lidl business; or that Tesco has otherwise 'price matched' the prices of its products with those of Lidl; in each case contrary to fact"

??

?She characterized that claim as "a claim of misrepresentation as to equivalence."?

On appeal, Tesco argued that the trial judge had been wrong to find that the average consumer would have been led by the Clubcard Prices sign to believe that Tesco had matched their Clubcard prices to the prices of the same products at Lidl so that the Clubcard prices would be the same as at Lidl or lower.?

Lord Justice Arnold said at para [160] of his judgment that the finding that a substantial number of consumers would be misled by the Clubcard Prices signs into thinking that Tesco's Clubcard prices were the same as or lower than Lidl's for equivalent goods was somewhat surprising at first sight.? Those signs had made no reference either to Lidl or to price-matching. They were part of a promotion concerning Tesco's own prices for Clubcard holders and were quite different from the contemporaneous "Aldi Price Match" signs.? However, the Lord Justice reflected that it was not unknown for judges hearing passing off cases to make findings of deception that seem surprising to lawyers and judges.? The trial judge had seen and heard the witnesses.? As the Supreme Court had affirmed recently in Lifestyle Equities v Amazon UK Services Ltd. [2024] Bus LR 532, [2024] WLR(D) 105, [2024] UKSC 8 appeal courts should intervene only if the court below has erred in law or was wrong in principle.? In this case, there was no basis for interfering with her ladyship’s decision.

Lord Justice Lewison also found Mrs Justice Joanna Smith’s finding of fact surprising.? He doubted that he would have come to the same conclusion as the judge but it was not open to members of the Court to substitute their own evaluations.? The question was whether her ladyship’s decision was rationally unsupportable and he did not think that it was. I have already mentioned my case note Trade Marks - The Appeal in Lidl v Tesco 24 March 2024 NIPC Law.? It is also worth reading The Lidl v Tesco Appeal: Lord Justice Arnold on Passing off 26 March 2024 for Lord Justice Arnold’s review of the authorities and guidance on the law of passing off.

Patents

?J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and Another [2024] EWCA Civ 276 (22 March 2024)

This was an appeal by J C Bamford Excavators Ltd. (“JCB”) against the revocation of its European patent 2 263 965 B9 for a Method of Operating a Working Machine by His Honour Judge Hacon in JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) on 4 July 2022. ? The judge had held that the patent was obvious over Japanese patent application number JP 2000-329073? ("Aichi 1"). JCB appealed against the decision with the permission of the judge.

Before the appeal could be heard JCB settled its differences with Manitou UK Ltd. and its holding company. The Manitou companies no longer wished to oppose the appeal but as patents confer monopolies they could not simply consent to the patent’s restoration.? The Court of Appeal had to be persuaded that the revocation had been wrong.? It could only do that after hearing argument in response to the appeal as well as in favour of it.

A similar situation had arisen in ?Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others [2006] EWCA Civ 185 (21 Feb 2006).? In that case, the Court gave directions to enable the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to attend the appeal if he so wished.? The law had changed since then. ? Para 14.1 (6) (b) of the Part 52 Practice Direction now provides:

"The Comptroller may attend the appeal hearing and oppose the appeal

.............

(b) in any other case (including, in particular, a case where the respondent withdraws his opposition to the appeal during the hearing) if the Court of Appeal so directs or permits."

The Comptroller instructed counsel to attend the appeal as amicus curiae pursuant to that provision.

According to Judge Hacon:

“Telehandlers have a four-wheel chassis, a cab for the operator and a longitudinal arm which can be raised or lowered and extended beyond the front of the chassis. The arm is used to lift and move loads. Telehandlers have become versatile workhorses in the agricultural and construction industries. In the construction industry they are typically used to move palletised loads, loose material such as soil or aggregate, or to carry hanging loads on a hook. They have a longer reach than a forklift truck and can be used in terrain that would be inaccessible to a conventional forklift truck. They have largely superseded tractor mounted hydraulic loaders for agricultural use such as stacking bales and the loading and shovelling of grain, silage and manure, being more flexible and having greater lift capacity and reach."

It is important to distinguish telehandlers from cherrypickers which Wikipedia defines as “a mechanical device used to provide temporary access for people or equipment to inaccessible areas, usually at height.” ? The big difference between a telehandler and a cherrypicker is that the boom of a telehandler goes up and down and forwards and backwards but never from side to side whereas the crane of a cherrypicker rotates.

Because both telehandlers and cherrypickers risk tipping over if the load is too heavy and/or the boom is extended too far, both types of equipment are fitted with safety devices which stop or limit the operation of the equipment if the device is engaged.? As the boom on a telehandler can only go up and down or forwards and backwards the safety device of a telehandler measures the load on the rear axle of a vehicle.? These are known as “load moment control systems” or “LLMCs”.? Since a cherrypicker can tip over on its side the safety device on a cherrypicker takes measurements on the boom.? The trouble with an LLMC is that it can make false readings when the vehicle drives over rough ground.? JCB’s invention disables the LLMC while travelling over a field or building site though it continues to warn the telehandler driver of any risk of instability.?

As I said in Patents - J C Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd. on 7 March 2023 there is a structured 4-step test of obviousness that was approved by the Supreme Court in Actavis Group PTC EHF and others v ICOS Corporation and another (2019) 167 BMLR 1, [2019] Bus LR 1318, [2020] 1 All ER 213, [2019] UKSC 15, [2019] RPC 9 and which I discussed in my case note.? Judge Hacon applied that test to arrive at the conclusion that claims 1 and 10 of EP 2 263 965 B9 were obvious.

Lord Justice Birss who delivered the lead judgment of the Court of Appeal approached the issue differently.? The safety device in Aichi 1 was intended for a cherrypicker and thus worked differently from JCB’s invention.? When the vehicle was stationary there were sensors on the arm and other parts of the vehicle that enabled a processor to work out whether there was a risk of tipping over.? There was also a work range limitation device which prevented the machine from tipping over while it was moving.? The difference between Aichi 1 and the patented invention is that the mobile safety device in Aichi switches off the stationary device while the vehicle is moving but does not disable it.? ? The learned Lord Justice's starting point was that there was no basis for reading into the meaning of the term LLMC a requirement that it must use a load sensor on the rear axle.? However, ?However, as Aichi did not involve disabling an LLMC but merely switching off one system and using another his lordship said at [69]:

"In my judgment, giving the claim a purposive construction having regard to the specification at paragraph [0037], a person skilled in the art would not understand the disablement feature in the claim to be satisfied by a method which involved switching from one LLMC to another. That is because switching would still leave an LLMC in operation thereby restricting the ability of the operator to operate the actuator devices at will."

Consequently, the installation of Aichi's device on a telehandler fell outside claim 1.? The appeal was allowed and the patent was restored. ? For more information, see Patents - J C Barmford's Appeal 29 March 2024 in NIPC Law.

Practice

Evidence

Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) (4 March 2024)

This is an action for patent and trade mark infringement and breach of contract that is listed to be tried over 3 days instead of the usual 2 by Judge Hacon in June 2024,? The claimants applied to strike out parts of the first and second defendants’ witness statements on the grounds that they referred to and exhibited “without prejudice” communications, constituted expert evidence for which permission had not been granted or were otherwise irrelevant or inadmissible.? Alternatively, the claimants sought permission to adduce additional evidence in response to the statements to which they objected.? The defendants applied for permission to respond to 2 paragraphs of one of the claimants’ witness statements.

As the defendants’ witness statement was said to refer to “without prejudice” material, Judge Hacon ordered the applications to be listed before another judge.? They were heard by Ms Pat Treacy sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 16 Jan 2024.? She handed down judgment on 4 March 2024 (see Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC)).

Ms Treacy took the defendants’ application first.? At the hearing, they pursued their application in respect of one of the paragraphs. The claimants offered to delete the allegation to which the defendants objected in respect of one of the objections and suggested a form of words to resolve the other.? In the absence of a draft witness statement from the defendants, the deputy judge could see no advantage in their adducing additional evidence. There were other ways of challenging the disputed allegations. She accepted the claimants’s offer to delete the disputed passage but otherwise dismissed the defendants’ application.

The claimants had objected to evidence that strayed beyond the list of issues that Judge Hacon had ordered to be tried at the case management conference pursuant to CPR 63.23 (1).? Ms Treacy held that the list of issues is not intended to operate as a straitjacket for the parties or the trial judge. ? She allowed the defendants' evidence on the construction of one of the agreements to remain but not evidence that addressed issues in the trade mark dispute other than the origin or advertising function of the mark.? She excluded some evidence that she regarded as prejudicial or otherwise unjustified but left most of it to be determined by the trial judge. ? It will be recalled that the claimants had applied for permission to file evidence in response to any allegations that she allowed to stand.? She denied their application on the ground that the costs of such evidence would outweigh any likely benefit. The second defendant’s witness statement discussed the life cycle of lobsters and various other issues that the claimants challenged as expert evidence which the defendants had not been allowed to adduce.? The deputy judge considered that the evidence set the scene for the witness’s evidence of fact and could see no reason for excluding it. There was no dispute that the defendants had exhibited and referred to “without prejudice” material.? They contended that it fell within either the impropriety, waiver or interpretation exception.? Ms Treacy reviewed the authorities for each of those exceptions and found that none of them applied.? She ordered the exclusion of the offending material.

Ms Treacy said that complex interim hearings should be rare in IPEC.? While the overriding objective and CPR 1.2-1.4 apply to all litigation they have particular force in a court with the stated purpose of providing access to justice for those who might otherwise be deterred from litigating for costs reasons.? She added that both the IPEC costs benefit test and the overriding objective oblige parties to have regard to the implications of all the steps they take for costs and for the allocation of court resources.??

I wrote about her judgment in Practice - Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others on 12 April 2024 in NIPC Law.

IPEC’s Cost Benefit Analysis Test

Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd and another v Made Television Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 405 (IPEC) (29 Feb 2024)

I have mentioned the IPEC cost/benefit analysis test in my commentaries on Ms Pat Treacy's judgments in Wise Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 234 (IPEC) (9 Feb 2024) in the March issue of this newsletter and in Ocean On Land Technology (UK) Ltd and Another v Land and Others [2024] EWHC 396 (IPEC) (4 March 2024) in this issue but I have never previously explained it. ? Here goes. ? Para 29.2 of the Part 63 Practice Direction provides:

"The court will make an order under paragraph 29.1 only –

(1) in relation to specific and identified issues; and

(2) if the court is satisfied that the benefit of the further material in terms of its value in resolving those issues appears likely to justify the cost of producing and dealing with it."

The "court" referred to in that paragraph is the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court and the orders mentioned in para 29.1 are for specific disclosure, a product or process description (or a supplementary product or process description where one has already been provided),? experiments, witness statements, experts’ reports, cross-examination at trial and written submissions or skeleton arguments.? However, His Honour Judge Birss QC (as he then was) extended the test to all orders and directions of the court in? Temple Island Collection Ltd v New English Teas Ltd and another [2011] EWPCC 19 on 22 June 2011.? He said at para [29] of his judgment in that case:

"As stated there the cost-benefit test is specific to the question of whether further material will be admitted but in my judgment the cost-benefit analysis can and should be applied more widely in the Patents County Court. It is a key aspect of the court's function to deal with cases in a proportionate manner."

Judge Birss added at [32]:

"In my judgment the costs cap and the cost-benefit test as applied in the PCC go hand in hand. One reason the costs are capped is because the kinds of case for which the PCC procedure is designed are the less costly, less complex and less valuable cases. The procedure is intended to be more streamlined, faster and more actively managed than High Court litigation. If one party risks being put to substantial costs by a step taken by the other party, the actual costs spent may well not be recovered because they will be above the cap. So the cost-benefit test plays a role in cutting back on costly and complex steps in litigation in order to save costs. If a step which failed the costs benefit test was permitted, it is likely to lead to the other party not being adequately compensated in costs.”

The Patents County Court ("PCC") was abolished and replaced by IPEC on 1 Oct 2013 pursuant to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The issue arose in a case management conference before Recorder Michaels in a copyright infringement and debt recovery action that had been brought by the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society and the Performing Rights Society.? The defendants asked for leave to amend their defence and plead a counterclaim. ? The collecting societies offered to consent to the amendments of the defence but not to the counterclaim.? They 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 and argued that permission should be refused because the defendants had no real prospect of making out their counterclaim.

Ms Michaels noted that many of the issues in the proposed counterclaim had been raised in amendments to the defence to which the claimants had already offered to consent.? She then proceeded to the IPEC cost/benefit analysis test. Between paras [17] and [20] of her judgment in Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Ltd and another v Made Television Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 405 (IPEC) (29 Feb 2024), she considered the points of overlap between the defence and counterclaim and concluded: "that giving permission to file the Counterclaim would add nothing or virtually nothing to the costs of getting to trial, other than in requiring the Claimants to plead a Defence to Counterclaim, at least part of which need only repeat parts of the existing draft Reply to the Amended Defence."? There were a number of new allegations but only one separate issue.? All of that pointed towards permitting the amendment.? She then considered some of the adverse consequences of permitting the proposed counterclaim which were some additional expense and delay. Balancing all those factors she decided to grant permission to file a statement of case containing those parts of the counterclaim which essentially repeated the points raised in the amended defence.

I have discussed Recorder Michaels’s judgment in Practice - MCPS v Made TV on 3 April 2024.

Joinder

The Welsh Ministers v Price and Another (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 1768 (7 Nov 2017)

I have already mentioned this case in Damages for Infringing Copyright in Photographs.? I mention it again even though it is not a recent authority because it was cited in Flitcraft Ltd and others v Price and another [2024] EWCA Civ 136 (27 Feb? 2024) and in Wise Payments Ltd v With Wise Ltd and others [2024] EWHC 234 (IPEC) (9 Feb 2024) and is a leading authority on joinder.

Pablo Star Ltd. had bought the copyright in the photograph from the photographer’s widow. The company had been struck off the register of companies at the request of Haydn Price, its principal shareholder.? A few months later Mr Price applied for the company to be restored so that it could bring infringement proceedings against the Welsh Ministers for posting a cropped image from that photograph on the Visit Wales website. Anticipating that they were about to be sued, the Welsh Ministers applied to be joined to the restoration proceedings so that they could oppose them.

Registrar Barber granted the Welsh Ministers’ application. Mr Price appealed to the High Court.? In Price v The Registrar of Companies and another ?[2017] WLR 299, [2016] WLR(D) 563, [2016] EWHC 2640 (Ch), [2017] 1 WLR 299, His Honour Judge Behrens QC allowed the appeal and set aside the registrar's order.

The Welsh Ministers appealed to the Court of Appeal.? Their lordships starting point was CPR 19.2 (2):

"The court may order a person to be added as a new party if –

(a) it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve all the matters in dispute in the proceedings; or

(b) there is an issue involving the new party and an existing party which is connected to the matters in dispute in the proceedings, and it is desirable to add the new party so that the court can resolve that issue."

They were satisfied that the registrar had been right to consider that the application of the Welsh Ministers was capable of falling within CPR 19.2 (2) (a) but they did not consider it to be desirable to add them to the restoration proceedings. ? Unlike the circumstances in ?Re Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd. [2000] BCC 554 where a landlord would lose its right to re-enter leasehold premises on the restoration of its tenant to the registrar the Welsh Ministers’ right to resist a copyright claim would be unaffected.? In The Welsh Ministers v Price and Another (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 1768 (7 Nov 2017) the Court dismissed the Ministers’ appeal.

I discussed that case in Practice - Welsh Ministers v Price on 19 March 2024 in NIPC Wales.

Service of Process in Germany

Seraphine Ltd v Mamarella GmbH [2024] EWHC 425 (IPEC) (1 March 2024)

While the UK was in the EU proceedings the procedure for serving process in EU member states is set out in Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32.? That regulation ceased to apply to the UK from 23:00 on 31 Dec 2020 when the implementation period provided by art 126 of the withdrawal agreement expired. HM Government applied to rejoin The Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters OJ L 339, 21.12.2007, p. 3–41 which contains very similar provisions to Regulation 1215/201 but the European Commission advised member states to reject the British application.

In Seraphine Ltd v Mamarella GmbH [2024] EWHC 425 (IPEC) (1 March 2024) an English manufacturer of maternity has issued proceedings against its former German distributor for unregistered Community design infringement. It tried to serve the defendant without the court's permission under the Anglo-German Convention of 20 March 1928 on Legal Proceedings in Civil and Commercial Matters. The defendant responded with an application to set aside service.? The claimant tried to serve the defendant again under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. The defendant issued another application challenging the jurisdiction of the court and requesting a stay pending proceedings in Germany.? The claimant issued its own application for permission to amend its claim form and particulars of claim. Both parties sought leave to adduce expert evidence on German law in relation to the application for a stay.? Those applications came on before Mr Michael Tappin KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 26 Feb 2024.?

The claimant relied on CPR 6.33 (2B) (b):

"The claimant may serve the claim form on a defendant outside the United Kingdom where, for each claim made against the defendant to be served and included in the claim form—

....................................

(b) a contract contains a term to the effect that the court shall have jurisdiction to determine that claim;"

The claimant’s standard terms of business contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause.? The defendant denied that it was bound by the terms because it had never placed an order in accordance with them.

The deputy judge was not persuaded.? The terms contained a number of deletions which indicated that they had been negotiated.? There was a provision requiring all other terms and conditions to be disregarded.? The defendant had referred to the terms when lodging a previous complaint.? He found that the claimant had made a good arguable case that the exclusive jurisdiction clause applied and that the claimant was entitled to serve process without the permission of the court. ? He allowed the claimant to amend its particulars of claim to allege infringement of unregistered Community designs where there was evidence that the defendant had submitted to the choice of law and jurisdiction clause but not in relation to earlier designs where there was no such evidence.? He refused the defendant’s application for a stay on the grounds that it had submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.? Having refused a stay there was no need for expert evidence on the issue.

Neither party pressed Mr Tappin for a decision on whether the 1928 Convention applied and he made no finding on it.

I discussed this case in Service of Process in Germany After Brexit - Seraphine Ltd v Mamarella GmbH in IP After Brexit on 7 April 2024.?

Trade Marks

Section 10 (3) - Infringement

Lidl Great Britain Ltd and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and Another (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 262 (19 March 2024)

I have already set out the facts of this case in my discussion of the copyright and passing off aspects of this case.? I also commented on the case as a whole in Trade Marks - The Appeal in Lidl v Tesco 24 March 2024 NIPC Law.???

Lidl Stiftung & Co KG is the registered proprietor of the following trade marks:

• UK2570518
• UK2016658A
• UK2016658C
• UK2016658D
• UK904746343
• UK902936185
• UK906560571

Those marks consist of a yellow disc with a thin red border against a blue background,? The first of them also contains the word Lidl across the disc in stylized writing,? Lidl Great Britain used those marks in its retail business presumably as the proprietor’s exclusive licensee.???

Lidl complained that Tesco’s use of the Clubcard Prices sign infringed its registered trade marks under s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.? That subsection provides:

“A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade in relation to goods or services,a sign which—

(a) is identical with or similar to the trade mark,?

(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark,”

Lidl contended that members of the public would be led to believe that Tesco’s Clubcard Prices would be the same as or lower than Lidl’s prices for the same or equivalent goods.

Referring to to para [111] of Lord Justice Kitchin's judgment in Comic Enterprises v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp [2016] EWCA Civ 41; [2016] ETMR 22, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith directed herself that:

"In Interflora this court explained (at [69]) that a proprietor of a registered trade mark alleging infringement under art.5 (2) [the equivalent provision in the Trade Marks Directive] must therefore show that the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the registered trade mark must have a reputation in the relevant territory; (ii) there must be use of a sign by a third party in the relevant territory; (iii) the use must be in the course of trade; (iv) it must be without the consent of the proprietor; (v) it must be of a sign which is identical with or similar to the trade mark; (vi) it must be in relation to goods or services; (vii) it must give rise to a link between the sign and the trade mark in the mind of the average consumer; (viii) it must give rise to one of three types of injury, that is to say, (a) detriment to the distinctive character of the trade mark, (b) detriment to the repute of the trade mark, or (c) unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark; and (ix) it must be without due cause."

She considered all of the conditions that were in issue and found that they had been satisfied,? She concluded at para [192] of her judgment that the mark with text had been infringed.? She arrived at the same conclusion with regard to the mark without text at? [196].

Tesco's main ground of appeal against the finding of trade mark infringement was the same as for passing of? It contended that the judge had been wrong to find that the average consumer would have been led to believe that Tesco had matched their Clubcard prices to the prices of the same or equivalent products at Lidl. Tesco also challenged the judge's conclusions on detriment, unfair advantage and due cause in the context of the trade mark infringement claim.

As I said in relation to passing off, Lords Justices Arnold and Lewison expressed surprise at the judge’s findings but could find no grounds for overturning them.? They also considered her findings on the conditions for liability.? They decided that her judgment should be upheld even if the price-matching misrepresentation point was wrong?

Tesco had counterclaimed successfully for the invalidation of several of Lidl’s trade mark registrations on the grounds that they had been applied for in bad faith. Lidl appealed against invalidation on 12 grounds prompting Lord Justice Arnold to remark that the multiplicity of grounds suggested that Lidl was unable to identify any serious flaw in the trial judge's reasoning.? His lordship considered each of Lidl's arguments on appeal and dismissed them.??

In his 196-paragraph judgment, Lord Justice Arnold gave some detailed guidance on trade mark law which I addressed separately in Lord Justice Arnold's Guidance on Trade Mark Law in the Lidl v Tesco Appeal 25 March 2024 NIPC Law.

S.10 (4) - Comparative Advertising

Gibraltar (UK) Ltd and another v Viovet Ltd? [2024] EWHC 777 (Ch)

This was the trial of a preliminary issue in an action for trade mark infringement.? The first claimant was the registered proprietor of the marks VETPLUS and AKTIVAIT for goods in classes 5 and 31 and the second claimant distributed such goods.? The defendant marketed the claimants’ products as well as its own Viovet range through its website.? Whenever a customer chose a VetPlus product he or she would be offered the choice of clicking either an "Add to Basket" button or a "Save ￡[x] per day", "Swap and Save [￡]" or "Try something new" button.? Clicking the latter would take the customer to a page displaying Viovet products,? The customer who opted to "Add to Basket" would see a pop-up which displayed not only the selected VetPlus product but also one of Viovet's products and the prices of the two products.? He or she could proceed to the checkout or select a Viovet product instead.? In the case of AKTIVAIT products, the customer could click a "Read More" button which would lead him or her to a page displaying VIOVET's competing product.? There he or she would be told that the competing product contained the same ingredients as ALTIVAIT but was a "more cost-effective option."

The claimants sued the defendant for trade mark infringement. ? At the case management conference, they invited the master to order the following matter to be tried as a preliminary issue:

"What message is conveyed by the comparative advertising complained of? In particular:

(a) Would the average consumer when presented with the Disputed Representations regard them as statements that the Defendant's products are comparable in nature and/or composition and/or specification to the Second Claimant's products including, inter alia, the efficacy and quality of the products?

(b) Would the comparative advertising at Annexes A and B to the Particulars of Claim be understood as only making a comparison concerning price and not making any comparisons concerning the nature, composition, specification or efficacy of the Defendant's and Second Claimant's products? Would the comparative advertising at Annex C to the Particulars of Claim be understood as making a comparison concerning price and also as stating that the Defendant's RenewMe product contains some of the ingredients that are found in the Second Defendant's Aktivait product?"

The Issue was tried by Mr James Pickering KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 5 Dec 2023.? He delivered his judgment in Gibraltar (UK) Ltd and another v Viovet Ltd? [2024] EWHC 777 (Ch) on 9 April 2024.

Although he referred to art 9 (3) (f) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation rather than s.10 (4) (e) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 the deputy judge arrived at The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (SI 2008 No 1276). ? He referred to? reg 4:

"Comparative advertising shall, as far as the comparison is concerned, be permitted only when the following conditions are met:

(a) it is not misleading under regulation 3;

(b) it is not a misleading action under regulation 5 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 or a misleading omission under regulation 6 of those Regulations;

(c) it compares products meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose;

(d) it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those products, which may include price;

(e) it does not create confusion among traders

(i) between the advertiser and a competitor, or

(ii) between the trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks or products of the advertiser and those of a competitor;

(f) it does not discredit or denigrate the trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, products, activities, or circumstances of a competitor;

(g) for products with designation of origin, it relates in each case to products with the same designation;

(h) it does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing marks of a competitor or of the designation of origin of competing products;

(i) it does not present products as imitations or replicas of products bearing a protected trade mark or trade name."

He directed himself as follows at para [23] of his judgment:

"In short, therefore, where there is comparative advertising, if all of the above conditions are met, there will be no infringement. If, however, one or more of the above conditions is not met, the comparative advertising is not permitted and it may amount to an infringement for the purposes of EUTMR."

As all the first claimant’s marks were national marks the purpose of the reference to the EUTMR is not clear but it probably does not matter as his task was to decide the message covered by the defendant’s marketing.

The claimants alleged that the defendant’s advertising did not satisfy conditions (a), (d) and (h) but as (a) and (h) depended on the judge’s finding on (d) the issue turned on whether the defendant had complied with issue (d).? The defendant argued that its advertising compared price and in that regard the comparison was accurate. ? The claimants argued that there was an inference that the defendant’s products were similar to their own. In the case of the VetPlus products, Mr Pickering found that the defendant had tacitly represented that its product was as good as and equivalent to the claimants’.? A pet owner would not wish to contemplate anything else. ? In the case of the Aktivait product, there was an express statement that the defendant’s product contained the same ingredients. I have discussed the case in more detail in Trade Marks - Gibraltar (UK) Ltd and another v Viovet Ltd? 14 April 2024 NIPC Law.

S.10B - Registration by the Brand Owner’s Agent

?Quantum Advisory Ltd v Quantum Actuarial LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 247 (14 March 2024)

I have already set out the facts of this case under “Fiduciary Duties” above.

S.10B of the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides:

"(1) Subsection (2) applies where a trade mark is registered in the name of an agent or representative of a person ('P') who is the proprietor of the trade mark, without P's consent.

(2) Unless the agent or representative justifies the action mentioned in subsection (1), P may do either or both of the following—

(a) prevent the use of the trade mark by the agent or representative (notwithstanding the rights conferred by this Act in relation to a registered trade mark);

(b) apply for the rectification of the register so as to substitute P's name as the proprietor of the registered trade mark."

In ?Quantum Advisory Ltd v Quantum Actuarial LLP [2023] EWHC 47 (Ch) Judge Keyser QC held that the defendant was licensed to use the QUANTUM ADVISORY brand only during the subsistence of the novated agreement by which it delivered services to the claimant’s clients. Upon termination of that agreement, LLP would no longer be licensed to use the brand and would be liable to a claim for passing off if it materially misrepresented its business as being associated with the claimant so long as the other requirements of the tort were met.? He also held that the claimant was entitled to substitute its name for that of the defendant as proprietor of UK00003320709, UK00003320706 and UK00003350849 but not UK00003320701 pursuant to s.10B.

On appeal, Lord Justice Newey and Sir Christopher Floyd could find no basis for interfering with the trial judge’s decision.? Their lordships approved his requirements for a successful application under that section in which “LLP” refers to the defendant and “Quad” to the claimant:

"i. LLP must have been the agent or representative of Quad.

ii. Quad must have been the proprietor of a trade mark that (a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark and (b) subsisted in goods or services identical or similar to those for which the registered trade mark was registered.

iii. LLP must have applied for registration of the trade mark in its own name.

iv. LLP must have applied for registration without Quad's consent.

v. LLP fails to establish that its actions in applying for registration of the trade mark was justified."

As I noted above, the Court ordered the transfer of UK00003320701 to the claimant on the basis that the defendant had registered the mark in breach of its fiduciary duty to the claimant. ? Further information on the appeal can be found in Fiduciary Duties and Trade Marks - The Appeal in Quantum Advisory Ltd. v Quantum Actuarial LLP 2 April 2024 NIPC Wales.

World Intellectual Property Day

The high point of the month is World Intellectual Property Day, an international festival of creativity, enterprise and innovation which takes place on or around 26 April of every year.? The day celebrates the entry into force of the Convention that established the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), the UN specialist agency that assists governments in protecting investment in creativity, enterprise and innovation through the bundle of laws known collectively as "intellectual property".?

Every World IP Day focuses on a different theme and this year’s is? “IP and the Sustainable Development Goals: Building our Common Future with Innovation and Creativity”. It is the most complex and most ambitious theme ever. The WIPO has held a video competition, commissioned a report entitled Mapping Innovations: Patents and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and posted an interactive video platform, a changemakers gallery and a calendar of worldwide events. For more information on this year’s celebrations, see my article “Perhaps the Most Complex IP Day There Ever” 15 April 2024, NIPC News?

World IP Day in Wales

Wales has advanced further than most countries by enacting the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.? The statute establishes 7 “Well Being Goals” which are compatible with but not identical to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.? As part of Wales’s contribution to the World IP Day celebrations, the Menai Science Park is holding an online and in-person seminar entitled IP and the Future Well-Being Goals between 12:30 and 14:00 on 26 April 2024.? I shall be chairing the event.? Confirmed speakers include Jonathan Tudor, Investment Partner of the Clean-Growth Fund, Tom Burke, founder of Haia, Elinor Cavill of DLA Piper and Derek Walker, Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. ? To learn more about the Well-Being Goals, see IP and the Sustainable Development Goals in Wales 14 Jan 2024 NIPC Wales. ? To attend the seminar online, register here.?

World IP Day in Barnsley

World IP Day is a good opportunity to celebrate local creativity, enterprise and innovation and the ancient Yorkshire market of Barnsley has much to be proud of.? Barnsley has given the world the composer John Casken, the playwright John Arden, the poet Ian McMillan, the entrepreneur Rita Britton and the inventor, Joseph Bramah.? To learn more about them, read Celebrating Barnsley' on World IP Day 18 April 2024 IP Yorkshire.

I should add a few words about Rita Britton who founded a remarkable business called POLLYANNA.? This was a shop in Barnsley town centre which sold clothes and accessories created by the firm’s leading designers. ? It was a Yorkshire institution like the Bront?s’ parsonage, Bettys tea rooms or even York minster that attracted visitors from around the world,? Ms Britton recently gave a talk to her fellow business owners at The Business Village which I discussed in Meeting Rita Britton, a Living Legend on 9 April 2024 in IP Yorkshire.

Having run a pro bono IP clinic from The Business Village for many years I can testify that there is no shortage of talented creatives, entrepreneurs and inventors in Barnsley. ? If you are one of them and want some initial advice and signposting for your new business, product or service, book an appointment by completing this simple form.

IP-Backed Funding

Because I have spent most of my career advising and assisting startups and other small businesses I am more aware than most of their difficulties in raising funding. ? It is particularly difficult at this time of high interest rates and rising prices. ? I was therefore delighted to learn that? Daren Tang, Director-General of the WIPO and Viscount Camrose, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property had launched a report on IP-backed funding on 19 March 2024.

This report which was written by Martin Brassell of Inngot and published by the WIPO consists of 47 pages of text organized in the following sections:

• Acronyms (common abbreviations such as "HMRC" and "SME");
• Glossary
• Executive Summary
• The United Kingdom's Journey?
• Types and Sources of IP Funds for equity investment and lending
• The Legal and Regulatory Framework for UK Finance covering accounting standards and financial regulation as well as law
• Non-regulatory Factors affecting the Use of IP in Finance including unfamiliarity with IP and issues with valuation
• The Role of Government in IP Finance covering the Department of Business and Trade, the IPO, the British Business Bank, UKRI and arrangements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
• Planning for the Future, and?
• Case Studies of 5 British companies.

?This report joins others on IP-backed funding in China, Jamaica, Singapore and Switzerland.? It can be downloaded from the WIPO website.

For more information see IP Backed Funding 20 March 2024 NIPC News.

Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II

On 21 March 2024, the British Business Bank announced the launch of a ￡660 million fund to invest in businesses in the North of England known as the "Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II" (see the British Business Bank's press release Launch of the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II provides ￡660m boost for small businesses of 21 March 2024).? Funds will be available for? "smaller loans" (￡25,000 to ￡100,000), debt finance (￡100,000 to ￡2 million) and equity finance up to ￡5 million.

For more information see Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund II? 14 April 2024 IP Northwest.

Manchester University Knowledge Exchange Partnerships Funding Guide

The University of Manchester has recently published a Funding Guide to Knowledge Exchange Partnerships.? The guide is intended for those who wish to work with Manchester University.? Other universities offer similar arrangements.

The guide focuses on Impact Acceleration Account funding and Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.? The former offers "fast, flexible support to help businesses and other organisations develop mutually beneficial partnerships with an academic expert."? This type of funding is proposed for Relationship Development, Proof of Concept and Secondments and two case studies are mentioned in the guide.? ?Knowledge Transfer Partnerships involve larger funds over longer periods.? Again, two case studies are discussed in the publication.

Now it has to be stressed that this type of funding is not for everybody.? Sometimes the interests of the business on such matters as entitlement to apply for patents for inventions that may result from the research may not coincide with the interests of the University.? It is therefore essential that the respective rights and obligations of the parties are agreed well in advance and such terms as may be agreed are embodied faithfully in a written contract.?

For more information see Manchester University Knowledge Exchange Partnerships Funding Guide 22 March 2024 IP Northwest

British Library Inventors’ Club

I am delighted to report that the British Library has set up an "Inventors Club".? I wish its organizers and members every success,? It is long overdue.? Other big cities have had inventors' clubs for years as I mentioned in my article Inventors Clubs in NIPC Invention on 25 May 2013.? The Club meets on the last Monday of every month.? The next meeting will take place between 18:00 and 19:30 on 29 April 2024.?

I strongly commend the club to inventors in or near London who are not employed in a research or development role in a business or university. ? As I said in my article the quotation wrongly attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson that if a man can build a better mousetrap than his neighbour the world will beat a path to his door is simply not true. ? Such inventors are vulnerable to invention promotion schemes that promise much but deliver little despite warnings from British and overseas authorities. Also, unless they have a coherent intellectual property strategy they risk spending large sums of money on patents that they don't need and may never be worked.

For more information see British Library Inventors Club 8 April 2024 NIPC London.

"IP is not just a Nice-to-have in Good Times ..."

I am proud to announce that I have been invited to speak at Vincents Solicitors’ seminar on 16 May 2024 between 16:00 and 18:00. ? I shall discuss many of the topics that I mention in this newsletter including as IP-backed funding ?IP-backed funding, the new Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund, IP enforcement that won’t bankrupt you in costs such as dispute resolution in the IPEC small claims track, the IPO tribunals, examiners’ opinions and the ICANN and Nominet domain name dispute resolution schemes.

For more information see IP is not just a "Nice to Have" in Good Times ........... When the going gets rough IP is essential! 17 April 2024? IP Northwest.