IP Glossary: P
Revised 29 Jan 2017
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, a multilateral IP treaty made on 20 March 1883 relating to patents, trade marks, industrial designs and unfair competition.
An action to restrain a trader from misrepresenting his goods, services or business as those of an established trader by using a trade mark, get-up or other indicia that is the same as or similar to that of the established trader.
An IPR, a monopoly of a new invention, The right to prevent others from making, importing, disposing, using or keeping a patented product, using a patented process or making, importing or keeping products made by a patented process.
Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT")
International agreement to facilitate multiple patent applications from a single filing.
The person or persons to whom a patent application is addressed. A person or team of persons with the skills and knowledge to make or use an invention but not necessarily to invent the invention unless the invention was obvious, A "person skilled in the art" is sometimes called "the skilled addressee" and in old law reports as "the man skilled in the art."
Copyright infringement on an industrial scale.
Sometimes called "the state of the art." Defined by s.2 (2) of the Patents Act 1977 "as all matter (whether a product, a process, information about either, or anything else) which has at any time before the priority date of that invention been made available to the public (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) by written or oral description, by use or in any other way.."
Copyright - Ashley Wilde Group Ltd. v BCPL Limited
Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Judge Melissa Clarke) Ashley Wilde Group Ltd v BCPL Ltd [2019] EWHC 3166 (IPEC) (21 Nov2019) This was an action for infringement of copyright in a prototype for a bed linen range. An example of a duvet cover from that range appears at the top of the above photo together with an example of the allegedly infringing item at the bottom. The claimant's product, known as "Evangeline" was sold as part of the "Kylie Minogue at Home" range even though the prototype had been made by one of the claimant's employees and not by Kylie Minogue. The defendant's, called "Amore", was under the "Buy Caprice Home" brand even though it had been designed not by the Caprice in question (the celebrity Caprice Bourret) but by a freelance designer. In her judgment of 21 Nov 2019, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed the claim on the ground that there had been no copying. She
What to do about the new Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct
CPR 63.20 (2) requires those bringing claims in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ( "IPEC" ) including the small claims track to state whether they have complied with paragraph 7.1(1) and Annex A (paragraph 2) of the Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct). If they don't the defendant has an extra 28 days in which to file his or her defence under CPR 63.22 (3). But if you actually turn to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct you will find that the old paragraph 7 and Annex A aren't there any more. That is because the practice direction was updated on 29 April 2015. In their place, paragraph 6 provides: "Steps before issuing a claim at court 6. Where there is a relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should comply with that protocol before commencing proceedings. Where there is no relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph 3, bearing in mind that com
Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br
Trade Marks - Re FOOTWARE, Puma SE v Nike Innovate CV
Patents - Promptu Systems Corporation v Sky UK Ltd.