Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
The Patents County Court has dismissed a claim that importing plastic microwave containers manufactured in China into the UK amounted to primary design right infringement (under s226 CDPA 1988), which prevents copying – exactly or substantially – of an unregistered design in the UK). The claim was inconsistent with the CDPA 1988 and the principle of territoriality of IP rights.
It was irrelevant that the manufacture overseas was with the “sole intention” of importing articles into the UK; primary infringement of design rights is not generally dependent on the “motive” of the perpetrator once sufficient copying is established.
It is unclear why the claimant failed to rely on section 227 CDPA 1988 (secondary infringement) in its claim, as this prevents importation without permission and for commercial purposes of an article which the importer knows, or has reason to believe, is an infringing article. Design right holders should ensure they carefully consider the basis of their claim at the outset when seeking to pursue an alleged infringer.
Break rights have proved a fertile source of litigation over the last few years. More often than not, tenants have found themselves on the wrong end of the decisions. However, a Court of Appeal decision yesterday has bucked that trend.
View blog
One of the requirements for tenants to contract out of the security of tenure regime contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that they make a simple or statutory declaration before entering into the lease.
Landlords should reconsider summary judgment if a Part 26A restructuring plan is pending.
A landlord’s claim for summary judgment to recover rent and service charge arrears accrued since the start of the pandemic against a non-essential retailer succeeded. Like London buses, a second such case has followed hot on its heels.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up