Intellectual Property - Hogarth Chambers

WaterRower v Liking [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC)

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:f38a7f59-7631-47a0-8fe1-39c4707019de […]

Sony Music vs Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell

Sony Music have failed in their latest attempt to prevent the estates of Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell from pursuing their claims for infringement of copyright and performers’ rights to trial. After the failure of Sony’s attempt to contest jurisdiction and the appeal against that decision, and the failure by Sony’s licensor, Experience Hendrix, to […]

Iconix v Dream Pairs

The Court of Appeal today gave judgment in Iconix v Dream Pairs reversing the trial judge, Miles J, and holding UMBRO’s famous “double diamond” logo to be infringed by the footwear logo used by Dream Pairs. The trial judge, Miles J, had dismissed Umbro’s claim, holding that there was no likelihood of confusion, focusing in […]

Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2023] EWCA 1478.

The Court of Appeal (Lewison, Arnold, Elisabeth Laing LJJ) today issued judgment in Montres Breguet SA v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2023] EWCA 1478. The Court of Appeal dismissed Samsung’s appeal against Falk J’s trial judgment holding Samsung liable for the watch faces, which took the form of downloadable apps placed on Samsung’s Galaxy Apps […]

TVIS Limited -v- Howserv Services Limited

This was a High Court trade mark infringement action brought one pet insurer, Vetsure, against another, called Petsure. Simon Malynicz KC acted for the successful defendant, Petsure, leading Chris Aikens, instructed by Simmons & Simmons LLP. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:93eff1fa-4905-4ad6-abc5-699187c8f833 […]

Sycurio v PCI Pal [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat)

Hogarth client PCI Pal announced to the London Stock Exchange on Monday evening that it had achieved “total victory” in its patent infringement dispute with rival call centre telecommunications provider Sycurio (link). PCI Pal were represented by an all-Hogarth Chambers team of Guy Tritton and Laura Adde instructed by John Mackenzie of Shepherd Wedderburn. Sycurio […]

Dr Craig Steven Wright & Ors v BTC Core & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 868

Michael Hicks appeared for the Claimants (Dr Craig Wright & Ors), instructed by Harcus Parker, in their successful appeal from an order of Mellor J refusing permission to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction. Arnold LJ ruled that the Claimants had a real prospect of success in establishing that the Bitcoin File Format […]

AIM Sport v Supponor [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat)

AIM Sport v Supponor [2023] EWHC 164 (Pat) – Edward acted for AIM Sport in their successful patent infringement claim against Supponor. Mr Justice Meade found AIM Sport’s patent to be both valid and infringed. The claim related to AIM Sport’s technology for virtual advertising in sports stadiums, which allows in-stadium advertising boards to be […]

Shine TV Ltd v. Ska Trading Ltd [2022] EWHC 3156 (Ch)

MISTER CHEF v. MASTERCHEF: conceptual dissonance? On 15 December, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE handed down a short decision in an appeal from the Trade Marks Registry in Shine TV Ltd v. Ska Trading Ltd [2022] EWHC 3156 (Ch). Ska sought to register the mark ‘MISTER CHEF’ for various cooking utensils. Shine owned earlier rights in the form of […]

Pasternak v Prescott [2022] EWHC 2695 (Ch)

Summary The High Court found that a novel partly based on the real-life love affair of Boris Pasternak, author of the world-famous Doctor Zhivago, did not infringe the copyright in the selection, structure and arrangement of facts and incidents contained in a non-fictional account of Pasternak’s affair written by his great-niece. It did, however, infringe […]

Monster Energy Co. v. Red Bull GmbH – CH-2021-000211

The High Court did not believe that Monster didn’t intend to benefit from the Red Bull brand “‘Red Dawg’ will in fact, whether that is what Monster subjectively intended or not, be given a free-ride, and will therefore gain an unfair commercial advantage,” Judge Johnson. Monster had applied to register a U.K. trademark for “Red […]

WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC)

Strike Out Refused: WaterRower could be a work of artistic craftsmanship The Defendant sought to strike out the Claimant’s claim for infringement of copyright in its water resistance rowing machine (the WaterRower), on the basis that the WaterRower did not meet the requirements to be a “work of artistic craftsmanship” within the meaning of s.4(1)(c) […]

Thom Browne Inc. v Adidas AG and Adidas International Marketing B.V.

Thom Browne Inc. v Adidas AG and Adidas International Marketing B.V. Edward Cronan acts for the fashion designer Thom Browne in this claim for revocation of nineteen Adidas trade marks, in which the well known sportswear brand Adidas counterclaims for an injunction against the sale of goods bearing the Thom Browne four bar design. Led […]

Advanced Bionics v MED-EL

Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Edward Cronan acted for Advanced Bionics in this medical industry claim for a DNI and for revocation of a patent relating to an MRI-compatible cochlear implant system. Led by Andrew Lykiardopoulos QC. […]

Nokia Technologies v OnePlus Technology

UK Patents Court: Overseas Defendants no exception to commitment to 12 month trial timetable In ongoing patent infringement proceedings between Nokia and the phone manufacturer Oppo the Patents Court has demonstrated that it remains serious about achieving its trial time estimates, even for overseas defendants. The Patents Court first committed to a 12 month timetable […]

Urbanbubble Ltd & others v Urban Evolution

Urbanbubble Ltd & others v Urban Evolution Property Management Ltd & others [2022] EWHC 134 (IPEC). When consent precludes trade mark infringement: Amanda Michaels acted for the successful Defendants in an action for trade mark infringement and passing off. Not only was there found to be no likelihood of confusion, but the Claimants were found […]

Website blocking injunctions – streamripping and cyberlocker sites blocked pursuant to s.97A CDPA jurisdiction

In Young Turks Recordings Limited v BT an ors [2021] EWHC 410 (Ch.) and Capitol Records and ors v BT and ors [2021] EWHC 409 (Ch), the High Court issued s.97A CDPA 1988 “website blocking” injunctions. Young Turks concerned a “streamripping” site which encouraged and assisted users to “convert” streamed copyright works on YouTube into permanent downloads (including providing users […]

Philip Morris v RAI: British American Tobacco – patent for heated tobacco device revoked for lack of inventive step and added matter

This was a bid by Philip Morris to revoke two British American Tobacco patents revoked for obviousness and added matter. The trial was expedited in order to provide Philip Morris with commercial certainty in relation to their marketing of IQOS heated tobacco devices in the UK (see picture above) and in order […]

Lyle & Scott v American Eagle Outfitters – permission to serve out of jurisdiction and Rome II Regulation

This was an application to set aside permission to serve proceedings on the US defendant alleging breach of a worldwide trade mark co-existence agreement and passing off. Both parties used eagle devices for clothing In dismissing the application, Miles J held that the passing off case had a real prospect of success. He also […]

A Ward Attachments v Fabcon Engineering Ltd – “Buzz” test for obviousness and acquiescence based on failure to respond to defendant’s letter

Judgment 29th July 2021 This was a patent infringement case in IPEC which concerned apparatus for receiving freight containers from the bed of a truck. Infringement and validity were in issue. On validity, it was claimed that the Patents were invalid for obviousness over two pieces of prior art, invalid for insufficiency and the divisional […]

Lifestyles Equities CV v Copyrights Group – Greenwich Polo Club device marks do not infringe Beverly Hills Polo Club registered trade mark

This case concerned whether various device marks including the words “Greenwich Polo Club” infringed registered trade marks for “Beverly Hills Polo Club” and amounted to passing off. The court held that there was no infringement or passing off. The judgment can be seen here and some of the trade marks in issue can be seen […]

Practice Area: Intellectual Property