Showing posts with label seminar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seminar. Show all posts

Monday, 31 August 2015

Intellectual Property and the Footwear and Textile Industries

Nottingham Lace Market
Author Allan Murray-Rust
Source Wikipedia
Creative Commons Licence



























Jane Lambert


According to the East Midlands Textile Association ("Emtex") the East Midlands has the highest concentration of clothing and textile companies in the UK. Nottingham lace, Leicester knitwear, Northampton shoes have an enormous international reputation founded on branding, craftsmanship and design.

These intellectual assets that are protected by registered trade marks, registered designs and other intellectual property laws and on the 10 Sept and 7 Oct 2915 I shall explore such legal protection in a seminar for MBL entitled Intellectual Property and the Fashion Industry.  In this seminar I will cover the following topics:
  • What sort of IP protection does my employer or client require for his business and where?
  • What provisions should I insert in my employer or client's licence or manufacturing agreement?
  • What should I do if I find copies or lookalikes of my products in competitors' shops?
  • What's Hot? The implementation of s.74 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 - John Kaldor v Lee Ann/Specsavers vASDA/Thomas Pink v Victoria's Secrets
  • IP basics; terminology, intellectual assets (brands, designs, technology and works of art and literature), intellectual property (trade marks, registered designs and unregistered design rights, patents, trade marks, law of confidence and action for passing off), institutions (Intellectual Property Office, Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, European Patent Office, World Intellectual Property Organization), Sources of law (treaties and conventions (TRIPs, Paris and Berne), EU legislation, statutes), enforcement. remedies, licensing
  • Advising the designer: types of design, aesthetic design, functional design, design registration and equivalent regimes, TRIPS, Paris and Rome Conventions, Designs Directive, Community Design Regulation, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Registered Designs Act 1949, licensing, enforcement
  • Advising the manufacturer; patents, trade marks, designs, licensing, cabbage, summary of laws in China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Thailand and Turkey
  • Advising the retailer: trade marks, passing off, searches, agreements with designers and manufacturers
  • Dispute resolution: High Court, Patent Court, IPEC (multi track and small claims), IPO examiners' opinions, appointed person
  • IP strategy: identifying appropriate rights for particular jurisdictions, selecting and instructing foreign attorneys, watch services.
My seminar in London will take place on 10 Sept 2015 and my seminar in Leeds on 7 Oct 2015. Both will start at 09:30 and end at 17:15 and will earn 6 hours CPD. The standard cost is £480 but there will discounts for season ticket and smart plan subscribers. Register on-line or call  MBL on 0161 793 0984.

Tuesday, 3 March 2015

So maybe Grantham really is interested in IP Law

Rabbit food produced by Henry Bell of
Granthan

Jane Lambert

Last September I tried to run a seminar on IP law as part of the Gravity Fields science and arts festival. To promote the seminar I wrote What has intellectual property got to do with Grantham? 4 Sept 2015 and an introduction to patent law as a Socratic dialogue in The Beehive pub. Try as I might I just couldn't raise any interest in IP and I had to cancel the seminar.

But a case that came before Mr Justice Arnold a few weeks ago shows that that there is at least one Grantham business that is interested in IP for it has contributed to the development of trade mark law. In Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd [2015] EWHC 256 (Ch) (12 Feb 2015) the Grantham pet food producer Henry Ball & Co. successfully resisted a claim by Ipswich based Supreme Petfoods Ltd. for trade infringement and passing off.  It is a very long, and unless you are a trade mark geek, difficult to follow, judgment but I have analysed it in my case note Trade Marks and Passing Off: Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Henry Bell & Co (Grantham) Ltd. 28 Feb 2915 which appears in my NIPC Law blog.

Basically, Supreme Petfoods objected to the packaging of Henry Ball's products because they had registered the word SUPREME as a word mark and various signs that incorporated the word SUPREME as device marks for various types of animals food.  The judge characterized their claim as an attempt "to monopolise use of the word SUPREME as a trade mark for animal food." He didn't let them do it.  He invalidated several of Supreme Petfoods' registrations except for small animal foods and held that Henry Ball did not infringe the trade marks that remained.

This is an important case for several reasons.

First, Mr Justice Arnold stressed that EU and hence UK trade mark law must be consistent with an annexe to the agreement that established the World Trade Organization called TRIPS (The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) wherever possible. That is because it is an international agreement which HM government and the governments of all the other member states of the EU signed with most of the rest of the world's governments and pacta sunt servanda (promises need to be kept).

Secondly, the judge explored what makes a trade mark distinctive. It can be inherently distinctive simply because of its uniqueness or in the case of common English words like SUPREME it can acquire distinctiveness through making lots of sales and clever marketing. His lordship focussed on acquired distinctiveness.

Thirdly, the judge laid down six conditions that must be satisfied for a claim under s.10 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and art 9 (1) (a) of the  Community Trade Mark Regulation which he claimed to have been established by a long line of cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Though Mr Justice Arnold made no claim as to originality in respect of this analysis I think he is way too modest because I have never seen them anywhere else.  In Enterprise Holdings, Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd and another [2015] EWHC 17 (Ch) (13 Jan 2015) which he decided a month earlier he made a similar analysis of the case law for claims under s.10 (2) and (3) of the Act or arts 9 (1) (b) and (c) of the Regulation. When read together Europcar and Supreme set out almost everything you need to know about trade mark law.

Fourthly, his lordship analysed in detail the last two of the six conditions for a successful suit under s.10 (1) or art 9 (1) (a), namely the use of the defendant's sign
"(v) .... must be in relation to goods or services which are identical to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
(vi) it must affect, or be liable to affect, one of the functions of the trade mark."
Most of Mr Justice Arnold's judgment was on those two points. He decided them in the defendant's favour at paragraph [165] because
"Henry Bell's use of the sign SUPREME would be understood by the average consumer as being purely descriptive."
In other words Henry Bell's packaging suggested that its food was of supreme quality and not that it came from Supreme Petfoods Ltd.

Fifthly, he made a very pithy comparison of mark and sign and specified goods and goods in use at paragraph [185] before throwing out the claim under s.10 (2) and art 9 (1) (b).

Sixthly, he did the same for the claim under s.10 (3) and art 9 (1) (c).

So this is a great case if you are a litigation solicitor in Lincoln or commercial lawyer in Spalding and your client walks into your office with a trade mark problem. Instead of thinking of learning curves and what they will do to your profits - or worse what patent counsel will do to those profits - you should read this case with my analyses and all will become clear I promise you.

Now I know this has nothing to do with intellectual property law but I am a ballet nut and the only other person I know who is crazier about ballet than me is called Michelle and she also comes from Linconshire. Your great county, oh Yellow Bellies, happens to host one of the best little dance companies in England called Chantry Dance Company which you really should support with your patronage. Last year they ran a workshop at the Drill Hall in Lincoln.  Here is the video of the show that put together with the help of two folks from Yorkshire and two from Coventry.  Can you identify the dancer stage right in the second row?

'Dream Dance' workshop from Rae Piper on Vimeo.

If you can I will buy you a pint next time we are both in The Beehive. If you want to discuss Supreme Petfoods and Bell or trade mark law in general give me a ring on 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours or message me through my contact form. Hasta luego amigos.

Wednesday, 10 September 2014

Copyright Basics

Jane Lambert





















Almost everybody has a copyright in something. It is most likely to be a letter but it could be also an app, article, blog, dance routine, drawing, essay, musical composition, painting, photo, poem, recording of a song, unpublished first novel or amateur video.  The person who made such work is known as "the author" and he or she has the right to prevent others from copying that work, publishing, renting, lending, communicating it to, or performing it in, public, translating or otherwise adapting it for a very long time. In the case of some of those categories of works for the rest of the author's life plus 70 years. If others want to copy, publish or perform his or her work the author can  charge a licence fee or royalty for the right to do so.

But there's another side to copyright and that is that many of the things that entertain such as films, games, magazines and music or use at work such as data sets, directories, software, terms and conditions of business are also copyright work and the owners of the copyrights in those works have the right to stop us from downloading, copying and, in the case of software, just using those works without their permission for which they usually want money. And to a consumer or a small businessman such restrictions just seem petty, and complying with them even daft, when so many people are making recordings, posting photos or videos to their social media pages without paying anyone anything and apparently getting away with it. There is often real resentment when a group of copyright owners take down a website which has been a source of free music or videos or sue or even prosecute the people behind them. However there is a reason for these laws and that is that arts, broadcasting, entertainment and much of the information and communication technology industries  rely on copyright for their very existence. Since their output excites us, inspires us, comforts us and generally makes our lives worth living, we have an interest as well as a legal duty to comply with those laws.

Copyright is an intellectual property right that comes into being automatically. It subsists automatically as soon as you create the work even before the ink is dry so long as you are a citizen or resident of the United Kingdom or of some other country which has agreed with the British government to protect the works of British authors in its own territories. Since our country is party to the Berne and Universal Copyright Conventions and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") under which each party promises to protect the artistic and literary works of each other's nationals and residents that is more or less everybody. You don't have to register your work with the Intellectual Property Office or some other office or organization. You can if you wish insert insert the copyright symbol , "©", the letter "C" in brackets, or the word "copyright" together with your name and the year in which the work was created but it isn't necessary for the subsistence of copyright in the UK.

In addition to copyright the author of certain types of work in which copyright subsists get the right to be identified as the author, the right to object to derogatory treatment of their work, the right not to be identified as the author of someone else's work and a right to privacy in photos and films. There are known as "moral rights" and protect the reputation of the author and the integrity of his or her work. They subsist quite independently of copyright and can sometimes be retained after the copyright has been assigned.

The rights of the copyright owner that I mentioned above are not absolute. They are subject to a whole slew of statutory exceptions which allow you to quote from, refer to, or make some other use of, a copyright work.  There are many licences such as those drafted by "Creative Commons" under which authors license their work or very generous terms. Many authors or publishers (but by no means all) actively encourage you to share their work.

But there are also associations of copyright authors known as "collecting societies" who police their members' works and charge licence fees or royalties for the right to use them. One of the best known collecting societies is the Performing Rights Society which represents composers, songwriters and publishers. You often see their stickers in bars and restaurants to show that the owner has a licence to play their members' music. They have teamed up with the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society to protect the rights of the recording industry. In addition there are organizations like FAST (Federation against Software Theft) and FACT (Federation against Copyright Theft) which pursue and sometimes even prosecute those known as "pirates" who infringe (violate) the rights of copyright owners on a big scale.

Copyright is usually enforced by copyright owners through proceedings in the civil courts - the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and certain county courts in England and Wales. The usual remedies are injunctions (orders of the court to stop or refrain from doing something), handing over to the copyright owner all unlicensed copies, paying damages (compensation) or surrendering ill-gotten gains (an account of profits) providing information under oath and paying all or contributing substantially to the other side's legal fees ("costs"). However, some copyright infringements are also crimes for which the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.

Copyright is a complex area of the law and I shall be talking about it in more detail in my seminar "Making Sure you make Money from your Brands and Ideas and not other People" at Grantham College on 26 Sept at 14:00. Entrance is by ticket only. You can book your place on-line or by calling my clerk George on 020 7404 5252. I look forward to seeing you there.

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Intellectual Property and Innovation at Rockingham Motor Sports Circuit









Very short notice I know but I only learned about this event just now. On Friday 5 Sept 2014 at 14:40 Kirsty Edwards of the Intellectual Property Office will talk about innovation and intellectual property.

She will be one of the speakers at an event organized by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills ("BIS") at Rockingham motor sports circuit near Corby the day before the British Touring Car Championship. Others will include Lee Mason of Liebherr who will talk about apprenticeships, Rachel Mallows who will talk about networking and Darryl Eales of LDC who will talk about the challenges of entrepreneurship.

Those attending the event will have the opportunity to meet Marc Hynes the driver of the Quantel BiFold Racing team, and his engineers and mechanics in the team garage and inspect their car.  Also there will be representatives of BIS, the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership, LDC (the venture capital arm of the Lloyds banking group) and other East Midlands businesses.

The event is free but booking through Eventbrite is essential.