Trade mark and passing off cases feature heavily in this month’s IP & IT Briefing.
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on issues including joint liability, and the liability to account for profits, in a case concerning infringement of the BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB trade mark.
In another case concerning a dispute over the rights to the name of the band Love Injection, the Court considered the law on issue estoppel created by a UK IPO hearing officer’s decision.
The BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB mark was also the basis of a case in the High Court, against Greenwich Polo Club. Mr Justice Marcus Smith found there was no confusion, and no link between the two signs.
In an appeal from a UK IPO decision, Mr Justice Zacaroli upheld a finding that a trade mark registration for FOOTWARE was not descriptive or customary in the trade.
Once again, there were several decisions in jurisdictional disputes affecting IP rights this month. The Semtech and Trappit cases both involve claims regarding the sharing confidential information and source code, and the interpretation of certain parts of the Recast Brussels Regulation. Meanwhile, in a case concerning standard essential patent licensing, Mr Nicholas Caddick QC set aside an order permitting alternative service in a case involving Chinese defendants.
There have been two notable decisions concerning data protection. In one, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Immigration Exemption in the Data Protection Act did not comply with the GDPR. In the other, the European Court of Human Rights found that certain aspects of GCHQ’s bulk intercept regime violated Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Finally, the EU Court of Justice has published its Annual Report. It includes data and analysis of cases and developments during 2020.
The IP/IT Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.