Copyright and Trademarks

Copyright

In interesting thought for next time you go out to a music venue: unless the proprietor has a license from the PRS (Performing Rights Society)  future visits may be suddenly curtailed. A recent decision relating to the “Twisted Fix Nightclub ” in Stroud, Gloucestershire means that the owner of the nightclub, who did not have a PRS license, must pay £3,000 in fines and can no longer play any music until all fees have been paid and his license is brought up to date. Failure to do so will result in fines of up to £10,000 and 6 months in jail…

Trademarks

The world of trade mark disputes has reached Barry Island. Entertainments Group – who are the trade mark owners of the mark London Eye – has spied that the mark Barry Eye is being used on the Ferris wheel at Barry Island. The lawyers for the owners of the London Eye brand claim that anyone seeing the Barry Eye will link it with the London Eye. The owners of the attraction at Barry however claim that the Barry Eye is not their official name and is simply one that has been adopted by locals so they are not liable for any linkage and are taking advice ….one to follow.

Posted on behlaf of Sue Radcliffe

Moral prejudice compensation for sufferers of IP infringement.

The CJEU has given a decision today under Decision Liffers C- 99/15 that when judicial authorities set damages for IP infringement they will “take into account all appropriate aspects, such as negative economic consequences”. The decision related to the correct interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Enforcement Directive.

The decision, which related to copyright infringement,  held that compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by a victim of IP infringement could be sought. The decision rested on the conclusion that not only the wording of EU Law should be considered but also its context. Therefore if there is financial damage to IP right holders and there is also moral damage, for example to the reputation of an author, then this should be accounted for as well.

Thanks again to Sue Radcliffe for this one.

Battle of the suitcases.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/09/kiddee-trumps-trunki-in-battle-of-the-suitcases

Magmatic has lost its appeal to the Supreme Court – see link above. This means that design protection has become very narrow indeed. The decision makes it clear that designs do not cover product “innovation” but instead covers the precise representation of the design. Therefore if you have products of a similar design shape but the surface decoration is different there will be no infringement.

This is not a good day for designers but I guess the Courts are looking at the balance of costs and the market in line with TRIPS which balances the rights of rights holders against society as a whole. Basically it is making sure there is enough competition to ensure that prices are not too high. Seems at odds with the whole idea of the IP system but hey hum….

Thanks to Sue Ratcliffe for this one.