Bringing you regular news of key developments in intellectual property law.


Stichting Brein v Wullems, acting under the name of Filmspeler, Case C-5237/15

In a CJEU reference involving the sale of a media player with pre-installed add-ons allowing users to stream films without authorisation from the copyright holder, the Advocate General has recommended that the principle established in GS Media, that the provision of a hyperlink to unauthorised content can in itself be infringing if done for profit or with knowledge that the content is infringing, should also apply to the supply of hardware. The Advocate General also recommended that the CJEU find that the streaming by the end user was not a transient or incidental temporary act of reproduction exempt from the general restriction under Article 2 of the Directive.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.


Action Storage Systems Ltd v G-Force Europe.Com Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 3151 (IPEC)

The IP Enterprise Court has ruled that unregistered design right in the Claimant’s “eXtreme” branded plastic lockers was infringed by lockers sold by the Defendants under the brand name “SuperTuff”. Rejecting the Defendants’ arguments that the design of the original lockers lacked originality or was commonplace in the market, the Court found that the Defendants had copied the Claimant’s design and had made their lockers substantially to the design of the eXtreme lockers. The Court also upheld the Claimant’s claim for secondary infringement.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.


Hospira UK Ltd v Genentech, Inc. [2016] EWCA Civ 1185

The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that a patent relating to the treatment of breast cancer using the antibody trastuzumab in combination with a taxane was invalid for lack of inventive step. Genentech contended that the first instance judge had erred in his assessment of what was a fair expectation of success on the basis of the prior art, and that he had failed to take proper account of the position of the skilled person. However, the Court considered that the judge had not erred in principle and dismissed the appeal.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.


Property Renaissance Ltd T/A Titanic Spa v Stanley Dock Hotel Ltd T/A Titanic Hotel Liverpool and others [2016] EWHC 3103 (Ch)

The High Court has considered a number of issues of trade mark infringement and passing off in proceedings between entities operating premises known as the “Titanic Spa” and “Titanic Hotel Liverpool”. Although the Court upheld the Claimant’s claims for trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to the past acts of the Defendants, the Court considered that the Defendants could avoid liability in respect of future acts provided they took certain steps to avoid a likelihood of confusion, such as including a prominent notice on their website.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.