IP Law Watch

Legal issues, law and regulations concerning the world of IP.

 

1
Lovely Jubbly? Fictional characters are capable of copyright protection in the UK
2
Developers Denied Double Dipping Damages
3
The NFT Collection: The rise of NFTs – Copyright strikes back? (Part 3)
4
Latvian Citizen Fined US$4.5 Million and Sentenced to More than 4 Years of Imprisonment for Fraudulent Trade Mark Renewal Scheme
5
The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)
6
New Interim Guidance on Fintiv Factors
7
The NFT Collection: NFT Basics and Opportunities (Part 1)
8
Indirect Patent Infringement Down Under
9
Diving Deeper Into the Amendments to the Australian Designs Act: Tips, Tricks and Risks (Part 2)
10
Ronaldinho and Henry Marks Step Over Bad Faith Finding

Lovely Jubbly? Fictional characters are capable of copyright protection in the UK

Considering the UK’s rich history of literature, it may be somewhat surprising to know that there was very little case law discussing whether copyright might subsist in a fictional character. However, on 8 June 2022, the UK courts finally tackled whether a fictional character can be protected under copyright law in Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools The Dining Experience Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1379 (IPEC).

Read More

Developers Denied Double Dipping Damages

The rule against double recovery, which operates to ensure plaintiffs are not compensated twice in respect of the same loss, is well-known and generally arises for judicial consideration where there are joint and several tortfeasors. The recent decision of Look Design and Development Pty Ltd v Edge Developments Pty Ltd & Flaton [2022] QDC 116 by Judge Long SC of the District Court of Queensland considered the rule against double recovery in the context of separate proceedings against different defendants. This case confirms that where damages for copyright infringement are compensatory, the fact that a plaintiff has already received an amount of damages from one infringer will serve to reduce the damages payable by the other.

Read More

The NFT Collection: The rise of NFTs – Copyright strikes back? (Part 3)

In a recent post, we examined the regulatory landscape of NFTs (see here). In our third of our series on NFTs, we will address the intellectual property concerns often highlighted by NFT critics.

Read More

Latvian Citizen Fined US$4.5 Million and Sentenced to More than 4 Years of Imprisonment for Fraudulent Trade Mark Renewal Scheme

Misleading renewal notices to trademark owners continue to cause confusion and, in some cases, unnecessary fees paid to fraudulent schemers that do not result in renewal of a trademark registration. Recently, a Latvian citizen was sentenced to more than four years in U.S. prison and fined over US$4.5 million in restitution, after he pleaded guilty to a three-year scheme that defrauded thousands of U.S. trademark owners of over US$1.2 million.

Read More

The NFT Collection: A Brave NFT World – A Regulatory Review of NFT’s (Part 2)

In a recent alert, we painted the big NFT picture, highlighting what a non-fungible token (NFT) means and the opportunities they present (see here). In this second part of the NFT series, we will take a deeper look at local regulatory control (or lack thereof) in this uncharted territory.

Read More

New Interim Guidance on Fintiv Factors

On 21 June 2022, the United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) issued interim guidance on how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should exercise its discretion when determining whether to institute a post-grant proceeding.

Read More

The NFT Collection: NFT Basics and Opportunities (Part 1)

NFTs have gone mainstream. But what are NFTs? Should your business develop its own NFT? How are they regulated? In The NFT Collection series of alerts, we will delve into these questions to help your business understand this new technology.

Read More

Indirect Patent Infringement Down Under

The issue of contributory infringement of a patent under the Australian Patents Act 1990 (Act) does not often arise for consideration by the Australian judicial system. When it does arise, the question of whether or not the product supplied is a ‘staple commercial product’ under the relevant provisions of the Act is always of particular interest.

In only a few cases has the impugned product been held to be a staple commercial product, and so any case that expands upon that product class is a particularly valuable aid. It is therefore of interest that the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court has recently considered contributory infringement in Hood v Down Under Enterprises International Pty Limited [2022] FCAFC 69.

Read More

Diving Deeper Into the Amendments to the Australian Designs Act: Tips, Tricks and Risks (Part 2)

In part 1 of this series (here), we considered the welcome introduction of a 12 month grace period that came into effect as of 10 March 2022. The grace period protects a design owner against inadvertent disclosure of a design before an application for protection of the design is filed – previously, this was fatal to having enforceable design rights. In part 2, we delve into the prior use infringement exemption that concurrently came into effect to mitigate the commercial risks that might arise as a result of the grace period.

Read More

Ronaldinho and Henry Marks Step Over Bad Faith Finding

Bad faith has been a hot topic in UK and EU trade mark matters in recent years – not least in the sports world where recent prominent cases have concerned the football superstars, and one time teammates, Lionel Messi and Neymar. Whilst in those cases bad faith was found to be a valid ground for refusal of the trade marks in question, which the players did not consent to, a recent decision of the Appointed Person in the United Kingdom has provided an important clarification on how bad faith objections must be raised in the UK.

Read More

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.