Thursday, 22 February 2018

Where there's a hit there's a writ

The old saying doesn't work so well now we don't have writs any more, but anyway the litigation reported by the BBC today is taking place under US law. That also means that considering how it might pan out under English law is pretty speculative, but it does serve to illustrate some important points of copyright law.

The story is about the family of a playwright (a Pullitzer Prize winner, Paul Zindel) suing several parties concerned with the film The Shape of Water. The fact that it is tipped to win an Oscar or two goes some way to explaining why it has generated litigation - the simple fact is that if it wasn't a hit, it would not be worth the price of a writ.

The plaintiffs (they still have them in the USA) argue that the film is "in many ways identical" to Mr Zindel's play Let me hear you whisper. The defendants say they never heard of that play, although the article says that there was a TV production of it at about the time the idea of the film was forming in its writer's mind. The writer might have been exposed to it, and it's possible that subconscious copying took place. It's also possible that nothing of the sort happened, and that the "at least 61" ways in which the films are identical are down to the fact that if you tell a story about an aquatic creature kept in a laboratory and its relationship with a cleaner or janitor those similarities are going to happen. Like Hoehling v Universal Studios  618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir. 1980) which turned partly on the point that if you're going to make a film set in Nazi Germany you are bound to have scenes in beer halls and people giving straight-arm salutes.

US copyright law works differently from the way our copyright law works. Because it expressly excludes ideas from protection, US law requires the judge to go through what has become formalised as a three-step process of abstraction, filtration and comparison - to reduce the work to a copyright-protected "golden nugget" before putting it beside the alleged copy to compare the two. The equivelant in our law is the rule that copyright is infringed if the defendant has taken the whole or a substantial part of the work - it all comes down to substantiality at this stage. In other words (and if an American friend should happen to read this I stand to be corrected), US copyright law protects elements of a work which qualify for protection (which are the author's original work, basically) whereas the UK law looks at the work as a whole and asks whether it meets the originality standard, then considers whether a substantial part has been taken. This is a point that I have discussed before on this blog: it seems unlikely that any element which is not the author's original work could be regarded as a substantial part, but this is not an area of the law where everything is set in stone at present.

The news story is by no means a comprehensive disclosure of the facts, so it would be wrong to speculate much about the possible outcome, but an interesting illustration of copyright principles.

Friday, 27 October 2017

Transformative use

In trying to explain when a substantial part of a copyright work has been taken (and therefore an infringement might have taken place), I came up with what I thought was a great illustration. It helped, perhaps, that I was doing the teaching in Moscow, so Rachmaninov came easily to mind. Leaving aside the fact that there is no extant copyright to worry about in practice (in any case, Paganini died in 1840, 94 years before the Rhapsody was written), would it ever be thought that Sergei Vasilievich's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini (Opus 43) infringed Paganini's copyright, or that it was anything other than a completely original work?

To start with, listen to the last of Paganini's 24 caprices, which is where Rachmaninov got the Theme from, played here by Hilary Hahn:

Then listen to Rachmaninov. There are 24 variations in his Rhapsody, starting with a fairly literal statement of the theme (you can hear that in the last of these three clips). Maybe he would have had to clear that with the Italian virtuoso, had modern copyright law applied at the relevant time. But the point of variations is that they transform the theme, and by the time you reach the glorious and impossibly romantic variation 18 (played in this clip by Valentina Lisitsa with the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Michael Francis) it has changed beyond recognition, turned upside-down by Rachmaninov to produce one of his greatest tunes (and I write "his" quite deliberately: it's no longer Paganini's).

The great pianist Stephen Hough explains what is going on in this clip.

Of course there are many other examples of authors (in the broad copyright sense) taking someone else's work and transforming it into something utterly original (in the copyright sense as well as the ordinary one), but I think this is a particularly good one as well as being a beautiful piece of music.

Note: "transformative" is not a word used in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is mentioned as a description of a type of fair use in the US legislation, and it featured in the Gowers Review a decade or so ago - where it was suggested that there should be an "exception", created by by an amendment to Directive 2001/29/EC, in favour of "creative, transformative or derivative works" which would benefit what the Review called "the Hip Hop industry".

Passing-off lecture launches IPso Jure channel on YouTube

It's now over two years since a memorable dinner over which, among other things, the idea of making YouTube videos on intellectual property came up, and finally I have managed to complete the first in what I hope will be a series. It's good that one thing has now worked out well from then.

You can find the YouTube channel here and I will put a link on this blog to make it easy to find. I called this first video a brief guide to passing off, but my old friend Godfrey pointed out that 54 minutes hardly counts as brief so I amended the description (although considering the size of Christopher Wadlow's great book on the subject, 951 pages in the 4th edition and no doubt more in the 5th edition which was published last year but the publisher's website doesn't reveal how many, I think under an hour counts as brief). There's only one possible response to that, and I am delighted that Pascal is the man to quote: "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." (Pretentious? Moi?)

I made the video using the Movie Maker program that comes as part of Windows these days (or perhaps it's an app that you have to download). It was very clunky, and I hope I can find an alternative that will make it easier to adjust the time each slide remains on screen - surely there must be a program that allows you just to drag the end of that image along the timeline to coincide with the right point in the audio file. If you're interested I will share my findings in future posts. And if you're not interested, I'll still do that but you can ignore me. If you have suggestions for suitable programs, I'd like to know!

Now that I have broken the logjam that had been building up for a long, long time, I hope I will find it easier to be briefer in future presentations. Certainly I already have several ideas for improving this video, although my next task will be to address trade marks, responding to a request I received a few months ago. But briefly!

Monday, 9 October 2017

Confused in Spain if not in the UK

Co-existence agreements have become routine in trade mark practice in the last few years (by which I now find I mean at least a decade - since 2005, in fact, when the Trade Marks Registry stopped refusing applications on relative grounds, meaning because someone already had a similar or identical trade mark already registered for the same or similar goods). Parties who would otherwise be locked in opposition proceedings can draw lines between their trade marks and the respective goods and services so as to avoid consumers becoming confused. But an agreement that overcomes problems in the UK won't necessarily help when a conflict arises elsewhere.

In a recent case, Ornua Co-operative Limited, formerly The Irish Dairy Board Co-operative Limited v Tindale & Stanton Ltd España SL the European Union's Court of Justice had to deal with a conflict between two Irish dairy companies, the owners of the well-known KERRYGOLD trade mark and the owners of the less well-known KERRYMAID trade mark. KERRYGOLD is registered as a European Union trade mark, while KERRYMAID is registered in Ireland and the UK.

It's not very surprising that the parties had struck an agreement to enable the trade marks to co-exist peacefully in the UK and Ireland. It's possible to argue that there's no likelihood of confusion on the basis that the common part of the trade marks is the name of an Irish county famed for dairy products, so the question whether GOLD and MAID are confusingly similar: but the fact that the KERRY part of the trade marks is the beginning makes them more confusing, and perhaps KERRYGOLD is well-enough known that consumers seeing KERRY-anything on the supermarket shelf would get muddled.

Leaving the co-existence agreement aside, problems arose when KERRYMAID was introduced to the Spanish market. No registered trade mark there, no co-existence agreement. KERRYGOLD sued for infringement (throwing in a dilution claim too), and the Spanish court decided that because the similarity lay in the KERRY element of the trade marks which was just a geographical location, and there was a co-existence agreement covering the UK and Ireland, there was no likelihood of confusion. KERRYGOLD appealed and the Spanish appeal court set off on an expedition to Luxembourg - in other words asked the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

The Court, unsurprisingly, said that you can't assume that because there is a co-existence agreement in two Member States, there won't be a likelihood of confusion in other Member States. If the Spanish court had been persuaded that there was no material difference between the UK, Ireland and Spain, that might have justified a finding that there was no infringement, but that hadn't happened. Indeed, I would go on to say that the fact that there is a co-existence agreement in two Member States indicates that there is a likelihood of confusion in other Member States where the parties haven't struck a deal to prevent it.

I would also have made sure that the UK co-existence agreement made clear that if the junior trade mark owner wanted to enter the Spanish market, there would have to be a new agreement. I'm dealing with exactly the same problem for a client at the moment: the fact that the junior trade mark owner only has a UK trade mark struck me as pretty conclusive about the matter of using their name outside the UK. It would not be use of the UK trade mark in a third country, it would be the use of something identical to the UK trade mark, and therefore the agreement has to stop the junior trade mark owner doing anything outside the UK. Co-existence involving a UK trade mark can't amount to co-existence outside the UK.

Friday, 15 September 2017

Why You Should Register Your (Well-Known) Marks in India- Now!

The enactment of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, has paved the way for formal registration of “well-known” Marks in India. Although India did recognise Well-Known marks earlier (through its Trade Marks Act, 1999, which came into force on September 15, 2003), there was no provision for their formal registration. After the 1999 Act, the Indian Trademark Registry made efforts to consolidate marks that, over a period of time, were recognised as “well-known” by various Courts, Tribunals, Registrar etc. and made available this list online which has 81 “well-known” marks. 

Going by the list, Trademark “Philips” seems to have been the first trademark that was recognized as a well-known mark in India back in 1983. However, it was the famous case of “BENZ” by Delhi High Court which made Well-known marks concept well known and accepted in India (1994 PTC 287).


Almost every brand is created with the aim of making it a top brand; however, only a few survive the test of time and of those few, just a fraction makes it to the big league.
Looking back in history reveals that brands such as Toyota, Microsoft and Apple, that are today globally-recognised, took several years to enter the league. By contrast, brands such as Google, Facebook and WhatsApp made it to the list in much shorter timelines. Of-course, the nature of their business, the increasing pervasiveness of the internet and the era of rapid globalisation also played a role in these brands achieving global recognition much faster.

There surely are certain benefits of “well-known marks”, the most important of them perhaps being protection from dilution, provided of course, that they continue to deliver superior, differentiated products and services.


Section 2(1)(zg) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999, defines a “well-known trade mark” in relation to any goods or services, as  “a mark which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned goods or services.”

What that means is - well-known marks are generally those that are acknowledged to have a high degree of reputation even beyond the areas of business of the proprietors of the marks. Such marks have attained such a degree of goodwill amongst general public (within a particular jurisdiction or even beyond) that even the use of such mark in relation to goods/services it is not generally associated with, would remind general public of the original source/product/service/proprietor. 


India being a signatory to the TRIPS Agreement was obligated to amend its Trademark law by providing protection to well-known marks.

Articles 16.2 and 16.3 of the TRIPS Agreement contain certain provisions on well-known marks, which obligate member States to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use of a mark conflicting with a well-known-mark.


Below we try to address a few questions like 'how to register a well known mark' and 'how much does it cost' to register a trademark.

Application for registration of Trademark:

As per Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, any person may file a request for determination of a trade mark as well-known (interesting to note that here it has been avoided using the term “registration”, using instead the word “determination”). Each such request shall be accompanied by:
  1. A statement of case describing the applicant’s rights and claim over such mark being a well-known mark;
  2. Evidence in support of applicant’s rights and claims;
  3. Details of a court order, if any in which such mark was recognised as a well-known mark; and
  4. Requisite fee (INR 1, 00,000.00).
The Registrar may call for further such documents/information as he thinks fit for the determination of a mark as “well-known”.

Prosecution & Registration:

If the application is found in order, the Registrar may, before determining a trade mark as well-known, also invite objections from the general public. Such objections must be filed within thirty days from the date of invitation.

Notwithstanding the above, if it is found that a trade mark has been erroneously or inadvertently included in the said list, the Registrar may, at any time, remove a trade mark from the list of well- known marks, after hearing the concerned party.


All proprietors who believe their marks to be “well-known” marks must consider making an application for determination of their mark as a well-known mark.

Further, proprietors of the marks that have been recognised by a Court of Law or Registrar as a well-known mark must also consider this registration with the Trademark Registry.


Once a trademark is determined by the Indian Trademark Registry to be as a well-known mark, the proprietor can be assured that no one else can register an identical or a similar mark in any of the 45 classes of goods and services in India. Registration would definitely safeguard the proprietors (of well-known marks) from the trouble of opposing every identical/similar mark every time a third party tries to register or to contest the registration of marks which may have been erroneously registered in any of the 45 classes.


As per Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, The Registrar shall take into account several factors in determining whether a mark can be recognised in India as “well-known”. Such factors include the following:
  1. the knowledge or recognition of that mark amongst the relevant sections of the public in India as a result of promotion of the trade mark;
  2. the duration, extent and geographical area of promotion/use of the trade mark;
  3. the duration and geographical area of any registration/application of that trade mark under this Act to the extent they reflect the use or recognition of the trade mark;
  4. successful enforcement of the trade mark to such an extent that such trade mark has been recognised as a well-known trade mark by any court or Registrar.
Further, Section 11(7) of the Act states that the Registrar shall, while determining whether a trade mark is a “well-known” mark for the purposes of sub-section (6), also take into account:
  1. the number of actual or potential consumers of the goods or services;
  2. the number of persons involved in the channels of distribution of the goods or services; and
  3. the business circles dealing with the goods or services, to which that trade mark applies.
Section 11(8) of the Act provides that where a trade mark has been determined to be well-known in at least one relevant section of the public in India by any court of Law or the Registrar, the Registrar shall consider that trade mark as a well-known trade mark for registration under this Act.


Certain myths and misconceptions prevail that in order to be a well-known mark, the mark has to fulfil various other criteria- for example, it should be registered/used in India etc. However, Section 11(9) of the Act clarifies that for determination of a mark as a well-known mark in India, the following conditions are NOT necessary to be fulfilled:
  1. that the trade mark has been used in India;
  2. that the trade mark has been registered;
  3. that an application for registration of the trade mark has been filed in India;
  4. that whether the trade mark is well known in; or has been registered in; or in respect of which an application for registration has been filed in, any jurisdiction other than India; or that the trade mark is well-known to the public at large in India.

By making provisions for registration of well-known marks, India has made it easier for entities with well-known marks to safeguard their rights. As many other countries are still contemplating to bring about such legislations by this amendment India has definitely taken the lead here. Although a few organisations have questioned the validity of the provisions relating to registration of well-known marks, none has yet challenged them in a court of law. Proprietors of reputed brands now have an opportunity to register their marks as “well-known” marks in India in order to not only safeguard their marks against unauthorised and unlawful use but also to protect them from the risk of dilution by inferior product/services. 

This article was originally published at   Please visit for more interesting reading.

Thursday, 7 September 2017

David v Goliath in the trade marks world

Bentley Motors has been involved in a trade mark dispute for many years, the other party being a company called Brandlogic which owns a number of trade marks of which the important verbal part is BENTLEY 1962, which have been registered for clothes since as long ago as 1982.

Bentley Motors has been using its trade mark on a small range of clothes for nearly 20 years. The prices of the clothes are, other things being equal, comparable to the price of the cars - a polo shirt will set you back £75, according to the Financial Times. Not happy about someone else using the name, Bentley Motors sought to have the Brandlogic trade marks declared invalid or revoked on grounds of non-use for five years. Although they succeeded in part, they were unable to clear the way entirely, and even an appeal (to the Appointed Person) left Bentley Motors in difficulties.

Now Bentley Motors have filed an EU trade mark application. They might have been hoping that this way they might do without Brandlogic noticing, because on the face of it their earlier trade marks will be a barrier to the new application. I've done it myself, usually the other way round - applying for a UK trade mark so the owner of an earlier EU trade mark wouldn't notice. If so, it hasn't worked. The reason the matter has been in the press recently is because Brandlogic's trade mark attorneys have switched sides, in a perfectly proper manner within the rules (although that's not to say that the rules, or the regulator, are right). Inevitably, they will want to act for the client with the biggest chequebook - that's the way the legal industry works (oh, you thought it was a profession?).

What is deplorable here is not that a company should be trying to maximise the power of its trade marks. As car companies go into making clothes - as everyone goes into making clothes, I suppose - trade mark registrations have to get wider. Often these conflicts are dealt with in a very heavy-handed way - the Goliath tries to bully David. I've seen it happen to my own clients and it isn't nice. But Goliath is answerable to its shareholders, and they are going to insist on trying every trick in the book to overcome the nuisance earlier trade mark, regardless of the merits. Often might alone (or at least a big chequebook) is enough. And that isn't a sound basis for a just trade marks system.

Sunday, 3 September 2017

Nottingham Law School graduation

I enjoyed the hugely gratifying experience of seeing many of my students from this past year receive their degrees a few weeks ago. Thanks to the wonders of modern technology it's all there on YouTube. And the vote of thanks at the end is great.

I can't begin to say how much they taught me!

Ferrari's TESTAROSSA trade mark under threat

According to international IP firm Novagraaf, Ferrari face a challenge to their registration of the trade mark TESTAROSSA. Autec AG of Nuremberg has applied to register an identical trade mark (in Germany, presumably) for bicycles (including e-bikes), and Ferrari's opposition has been rejected by the German courts on the grounds that the Italian manufacturer has not used its trade mark for more than five years. Non-use for five years or more makes a trade mark registration liable to revocation, and Autec is now seeking to have Ferrari's German and EU trade marks revoked.

Ferrari had argued that the trade mark was in use, as it was providing maintenance and repair services for the Testarossa - which it stopped making in 1996. But the court, crucially, held that in fact those services were marketed under the Ferrari brand not TESTAROSSA.

That seems quite correct to me. Trade marks perform several functions, not just the traditional origin-indicating one, but essentially a trade mark owner must use a trade mark to indicate the origin of its goods and services. TESTAROSSA in connection with servicing and repair is an indication of the purpose of the services, and should not support the registration of the trade mark for cars. There are 11 various registrations in Ferrari's name for TESTAROSSA (and quite a few in other people's names, hardly surprising given that the word could just as well be used for many different goods), but none of them are for services. Replacement parts are covered, but I suspect that the objection that they are sold under the Ferrari name not TESTAROSSA (and, if it be used at all, that designation is purely descriptive of the purpose of the goods) would apply here too.

A cautionary tale for owners of "heritage" (that is to say, old) trade marks. In the UK, perhaps they don't need to worry so much because an action for passing off might lie even if the trade mark were liable to revocation, but far better and cheaper to keep the trade mark in use, somehow. When the modern Testarossa was launched in 1984 its chosen name harked back to the 1957 Ferrari 250 sports racing car, and the name could similarly be recycled now to maintain protection. 

Friday, 30 June 2017

Intellectual property and competition law

Always an interesting topic ...

Hemphill, C. Scott, Intellectual Property and Competition Law (May 9, 2017). Forthcoming, Oxford Handbook of Intellectual Property Law (Rochelle C. Dreyfuss & Justine Pila eds. 2017). Available at SSRN: or

And another article of interest:

Lim, Daryl, Retooling the Patent-Antitrust Intersection: Insights from Behavioral Economics (April 14, 2017). 69 Baylor Law Review 124 (2017). Available at SSRN:

blogger templates | Make Money Online