This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases Intellectual Property

Add2 Research & Development Ltd v dSpace Ltd and another

Judgment Date: 17 Jun 2021

A new judgment of the Patents Court in London contains an important discussion of the circumstances in which a transaction by a company will be treated as ultra vires and void as an unlawful distribution to a shareholder at common law.

View case

In The Matter of Sprintroom Ltd sub nom Edwin John Prescott v (1) Aristides George Potamianos (2) Sprintroom Ltd : Aristides George Potamianos v (1) Edwin John Prescott (2) Sprintroom Ltd (2019)

Judgment Date: 06 Jun 2019

The Court of Appeal considered two appeals concerning a decision on an unfair prejudice claim brought by a minority shareholder.

View case

Cartier International AG & Ors v British Telecommunications Plc & Anor (2018)

Judgment Date: 13 Jun 2018

Trade mark owners who obtained website-blocking injunctions against internet service providers who were innocent conduits in relation to infringing activity carried out on websites to which they provided access, were required to indemnify the internet service providers against the costs of complying with the injunctions.

View case

David Mensah (T/A 37 Days 3 Hours 9 Minutes) v Jeremy Darroch & 8 Ors (2014)

Judgment Date: 19 Mar 2014

A claim brought against broadcasting entities that a television show they had launched had been developed using a business proposal submitted to them by the claimant was struck out in its entirety where the claimant had failed to adduce any material facts on which allegations of dishonesty and conspiracy might be based. Accordingly, the claim had no real prospect of success.

View case

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency (2013)

Judgment Date: 17 Apr 2013

The Supreme Court proposed to refer to the European Court of Justice the issue of whether copies of protected material temporarily retained in the internet cache or on the end-user's screen fell within the exception provided for by Directive 2001/29 art.5(1).

View case

EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd (2013)

Judgment Date: 28 Feb 2013

The court issued a blocking injunction requiring six internet service providers to block customers' access to three peer-to-peer file-sharing websites. The service providers knew that customers were using the services to download copyrighted sound recordings without permission, and a blocking injunction was proportionate in the circumstances.

View case

Quick Draw LLP v Global Live Events LLP & Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 30 Jul 2012

A limited liability partnership which had provided a bridging loan to finance a concert was entitled to recover the full amount due from the concert organiser. Under the terms of a debenture, the lender was entitled to existing and future copyright in sound and film recordings of the concert as security for the loan.

View case

Dramatico Entertainment Ltd & 8 Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & 5 Ors (2012)

Judgment Date: 20 Feb 2012

The downloading and uploading of music industry sound recordings by the operators and users of a peer-to-peer file-sharing website infringed the copyrights of record companies in the United Kingdom.

View case

Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & 6 Ors v Meltwater Holding BV, Meltwater News UK Ltd

Judgment Date: 27 Jul 2011

A web end-user licence was required to lawfully use and receive content in the form of clippings and headlines sourced by media monitoring organisations that trawled a multitude of websites using search terms selected by the end-user. That was because the copies passed on to the end-users were not covered by the web database licences issued to the monitoring organisations. The end-user licence was only needed where the content passed on to the end-user constituted a substantial part of the original work.

View case

CSC Media Group Ltd v Video Performance Ltd (2011)

Judgment Date: 27 May 2011

Provided that the Copyright Tribunal discharged its statutory duty under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.126 to determine the terms of a licence that were reasonable in the circumstances by having regard to comparable schemes and licences as well as all other relevant considerations, then the precise way in which it carried out its analysis and the order in which it addressed the material issues in its decision could not undermine the validity of its conclusions.

View case

MGN Ltd & Ors v Alan Grisbrook (2010)

Judgment Date: 09 Dec 2010

By making copies of newspaper back-issues available to the public on a website a newspaper publisher had infringed the copyright of a photographer whose images had been printed in some of those newspapers as such exploitation by electronic means was different in kind from the exploitation of existing hard copies that had originally been contemplated by the parties.

View case

Newspaper Licensing Agency & 4 Ors v Meltwater Holding BV & Ors (2010)

Judgment Date: 26 Nov 2010

Companies had infringed newspapers' copyright by using a media monitoring service from a third party which provided them with copies of headlines and extracts from articles on newspaper websites. A web end-user licence was required to lawfully use and receive the third party's service.

View case

Crosstown Music Company 1 LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd, Mark Taylor & Paul Barry (2010)

Judgment Date: 02 Nov 2010

A provision in an assignment of copyright allowing automatic reverter of the rights to the assignor on a future event, namely an unremedied material breach of contract by the assignee, was a valid partial assignment within the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.90(2).

View case

CSC Media Group Ltd v Video Performance Ltd (2010)

Judgment Date: 10 Aug 2010

The Copyright Tribunal had erred, in determining the terms on which a broadcaster should be licensed to use a licensing body's music video repertoire in the operation of its television music channels, in reaching a decision on royalties without considering a relevant comparable licence. That was contrary to the correct approach, which involved starting with the most relevant comparable and adapting it to the circumstances of the particular case.

View case

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Gary Fielding & Ors (2005)

Judgment Date: 27 Jul 2005

Transactions between a company and a shadow director were voidable unless the requisite formalities had been observed. Where a person became a shadow director by virtue of the fact that the board of directors became accustomed to acting on his instructions, transactions entered into between the parties before that point in time were not retrospectively invalidated.

View case

Phonographic Performance Ltd v Planet Ice Ltd (2004)

Judgment Date: 02 Feb 2004

On an application by the claimant for summary judgment, where the defendant had admitted that it had no defence to the claim of copyright infringement, judgment had to be entered, even though the defendant had sought an adjournment.

View case

Christopher Gabrin v (1) Universal Music Operations Ltd (2) Jill Jewiss (2003)

Judgment Date: 17 Jun 2003

A photograph taken at a photo shoot had not been commissioned. The photographer owned the copyright in the photograph and was entitled to a remedy regarding the unauthorised use of that photograph by a record company.

View case

Dranez Anstalt & Ors v Zamir Hayek & Ors (2001)

Judgment Date: 20 Dec 2001

The designer of a mechanical ventilator who was a former director and employee of the claimant companies was not guilty of passing off or misuse of trade secrets or confidential information by setting up a competing business. However, the investors in the claimant companies were entitled to enforce an undertaking given by him that he would not compete with them.

View case

Phomographic Performance Ltd v Candy Rock Recording Ltd (2000)

Judgment Date: 30 Mar 2000

Section 129 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was not limited to a comparison between licences granted by the same person. The fact that narrowcasters were exempt from the site licence fee which commercial dubbers had to pay was a relevant factor for the Copyright Tribunal to consider when deciding on the royalty rate that a dubbing company should pay to Phonographic Performance Ltd. * Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

View case

Orwin v Attorney-General (1997)

Judgment Date: 21 Nov 1997

Whether vesting order should be made under s.51 Trustee Act 1925 in respect of intellectual property vested in company immediately before its dissolution.

View case