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 recent case of Utopia Tableware Ltd v BBP Marketing Ltd & Another concerned a fairly straightforward argument of infringement. Utopia makes and sells ‘Aspen’ beer glasses and BBP launched a very similar design in its new ‘Aspire’ range. Utopia accordingly filed for an injunction in the Patents County Court to stop BBP selling its Aspire products.
The injunction was allowed, but it later transpired that some of Utopia’s injunction evidence was fabricated. Two directors of Utopia tampered with emails, signed false witness statements and repeated lies in further statements. Despite BBP later admitting to copying the Utopia design, the court directed the Attorney General to consider the criminal charge of contempt of court. This is highly rare in IP cases, but Birss J felt that Utopia’s dishonesty was such that it amounted to serious contempt.
It goes without saying that you should never lie before the court, but Utopia is a stark reminder of just how important this is for any client.
Lord Justice Arnold has applied the guidance of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to the evidence before him, in the long standing trade mark dispute between Sky and Skykick.
View blog
A recent decision by the Supreme Court in Shanks v Unilever PLC has supported the right for employees to receive compensation for patented inventions if the invention is of ‘outstanding benefit’.
The High Court has rejected the judicial review claim brought by the campaign group BackTo60 against the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).
On 16 July 2019 the Serious Fraud Office released details of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reached with Sarclad Ltd in July 2016.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up