The screening of live television broadcasts in pubs constituted a communication to the public of a copyright work under s.20 CDPA 1988: However the defence in s.72(1)© CDPA 1988 applied: where there was no charge for admission, the showing in public of a broadcast did not infringe any copyright in the broadcast or in any film included in it. The intention of the legislature was clear.
|
In a dispute over copyright in a film of a skydive over Mount Everest, it was held that W, a financier who organised and paid for the skydive trip and the filming as well as taking part in it, and S, the cameraman, were joint owners of the copyright in the film. It had been W's intention that he would own all the intellectual property rights in the film but on the balance of probabilities he had not made this clear to S at the relevant meeting. In the absence of any express term to the contrary ...
|
In criminal proceedings involving the screening by a pub landlady of live premier league football matches using a satellite decoding card supplied by a Greek broadcaster, an appeal by way of case stated was allowed and M's convictions under the CDPA 1988 s.297 were quashed. The court applied the preliminary ruling of the CJEU to the effect that the decoder used by M was not an "illicit device" within Directive 98/84 art.2.
|
The court had jurisdiction under Regulation 207/2009 art 96(d) to hear a counterclaim for revocation of Community trade marks only if the counterclaim acted as a defence to the infringement claim. The court would not hear a counterclaim which related to Community trade marks other than those subject of the infringement claim. The appropriate forum for revocation claims unrelated to an infringement claim was OHIM.
|
An SPC obtained by M in respect of a patent concerning antibody phage display was invalid. The SPC identified a product, ranibizumab, as a product obtained by a process which infringed the patent. The test laid down by the CJEU required the product to be specified or identified in the wording of the claims, which was a more demanding test than requiring it to be merely within the scope of the claims. There was nothing at all in the claims or in the specification to identify ranibizumab as the pr ...
|
IPCom's patent, relating to a method of handing over communications between a mobile phone and a first base station to a second base station, was invalid as granted. The main application to amend was not allowable because the claims as amended would be invalid for lack of novelty and lack of inventive step. A further application to amend was not allowable because it added subject matter. A further application to amend was allowable; however the court ruled that none of the claims as amended were ...
|
Following a patent trial in which C had raised a large number of defences and won on the single issue of obviousness, there was no order for costs. This took into account that C was the overall winner, and that C had taken an unnecessarily large number of points and had lost on most of them.
|
In an enquiry into damages for patent infringement, it was too late for S to raise the issue of the true ownership of the patents. S had admitted in its defence that K was the registered proprietor of the patent. The issue had been raised in skeleton argument at trial but had not been raised when the trial judge ordered relief. At the stage of the enquiry into damages there was no longer any cause of action for patent infringement: it had been replaced by the judgment. An application for summary ...
|
The defendants were found to have infringed T's copyright in a digitally altered photograph of a London bus on Westminster bridge. The composition of a photographic image was capable of being a source of originality. There were obvious similarities between T's work and the image used by N, and the common elements were causally related. It was not right to say that T's work was so general or ordinary that only a facsimile copy could amount to reproduction of a substantial part. On Balance, N's wo ...
|
An appeal was dismissed against a decision that Community trade mark registrations for 32RED for online gaming services were infringed by W's use of "32Vegas" for the same services. The judge had made no error of principle and had been entitled to find that the Community marks were highly distinctive in character and that the number 32 was the dominant feature. The judge had erred in assuming that it was not possible for there to be infringement of a UK trade mark registration for the number 32 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |