IP in New Zealand

Author Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust Licence Public Domain

 

Jane Lambert

On 19 Dec 2022, the Intellectual Property Office published Guidance on IP in New Zealand.  The Guidance covers trade marks, patents, designs, copyrights and enforcement.  It has links to the Department for International Trade to report trade barriers and the British New Zealand Business Association for advice on doing business in New Zealand.

The Guidance introduces readers to the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand ("IPONZ") which registers patents, trade marks, designs, plant varieties and geographical indications.  It also offers guidance on copyrights, trade secrets, domain names and company names.  Applications for NZ patents, trade marks or designs can be made directly to IPONZ  or through international conventions.   Important differences appear to be grace periods for patents and designs, the requirement of an address for service in Australia or New Zealand and a 50-year copyright term.

IP owners can bring infringement proceedings through the civil courts though there is a warning in the Guidance that "this can often be very time consuming and expensive."  Alternative dispute resolution procedures such as mediation, arbitration and expert determination are said to be available.  There are also customs procedures to prevent the importation of infringing articles and criminal penalties for copyright piracy and counterfeiting,  There is a link to a page on IP Enforcement which is maintained by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Readers will find more information about this topic on my New Zealand page.  Anyone wishing to discuss this topic may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

India Free Trade Agreement Negotiations

 

Jane Lambert

According to the IP Helpdesk, negotiations between the British and Indian governments were given fresh impetus by the meeting of those countries' prime ministers at the G20 Summit in Bali (see UK – India Free Trade Agreement Going Forward 9 Dec 2022).  That news article envisages negotiations to be completed within  5 to 6 months. The IP Helpdesk news article accords with a press release from Kemi Badenoch MP and the Department for International Trade entitled: "Trade Secretary to lead next round of trade negotiations on first visit to India" dated 12 Dec 2022.

The article states that the issues that remain to be resolved include access of Indian films to the British market and "specific rules within the patent regime" on the Indian side and Indian duties on spirits and motor vehicles on the British side. Facilitating the mobility of professionals thereby strengthening both countries’ labour markets is said to be an issue for both parties.

This last issue is echoed in the British press release:

"The talks – the first formal round since July – will target a deal to cut tariffs and open opportunities for UK services such as financial and legal, making it easier for British businesses to sell to an economy set to be the world’s third largest - with a middle class of 250 million people - by 2050."

While she is in India, the International Trade Secretary will meet envoPAP, a UK company investing over £10 million to construct a plant to produce paper and packaging products in India.  The press release also mentions initiatives in India by other British-based businesses including Pret a Manger, tide and Revolut. Exports to India are expected to grow by over £9 billion by the middle of the next decade.

I shall continue to monitor the negotiations and will update readers on significant developments. particularly those relating to IP.  Anyone wishing to discuss this article should call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact page. 

REUL Bill First Update

Intellectual Property Office

Crown Copyrights  Open Government Licence

 

Jane Lambert

In Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (26 Oct 2022), I mentioned the introduction and second reading of that bill.  In that article, I wrote that the purpose of the bill s to enable the government to remove the special features of retained European Union law ("REUL") from the English and Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish legal systems by the end of 2023.  I added that the bill if passed was likely to affect intellectual property law in the United Kingdom because much of that law implements EU legislation and case law.  For that reason, I offered to follow the progress of the bill and its application to intellectual property law.

According to the UK Parliament's website, the bill has completed the report stage and is now at the report stage.  A copy of the bill as amended in committee can be found here.   Anyone interested in what was said in Parliament about the bill can consult Hansard here.

On 29 Nov 2022, the Intellectual Property Office published updated guidance on the bill.   It consists of a list of retained EU law, as defined in s. 6 (7) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.  Such law relates to intellectual property within the policy remit of the IPO and does not address issues that lie outside such as plant varieties or rights arising at common law.  The list covers copyrights, designs, patents, trade marks and enforcement.  Readers will see that it is quite long enough.

I shall continue to monitor the progress of the bill and report any other useful materials on the topic that come to my attention.  In the meantime, anyone who is interested in the topic may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

 

Jane Lambert

The second reading of the Retained EI Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill took place on St Crispin's Day,  Ironically it was the day on which the bill's sponsor, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, resigned his portfolio as Business Secretary.  A copy of Mr Rees-Mogg's letter of resignation appears on his website.

According to its explanatory notes, the purpose of the bill is to enable the government to remove the special features of retained European Union law ("REUL") in the English and Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish legal systems by the end of 2023.  REUL is not defined in the bill but it refers to the regulations and directives of the European Council and Commission and the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Law which were retained by ss. 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.   This bill, if passed, is likely to affect intellectual property law in the United Kingdom because much of that law implements EU legislation and case law.

Paea 3 of the explanatory notes states that the bill will achieve its objective by:

(a) repealing or assimilating REUL, within a defined scope, by the end of 2023 

(b) Repealing the principle of supremacy of EU law from UK law by the end of 2023; 

(c) Facilitating domestic courts departing from retained case law; 

(d) Providing a mechanism for UK government and devolved administration law officers to intervene in cases regarding retained case law, or refer them to an appeal court, where relevant; 

(e) Repealing directly effective EU law rights and obligations in UK law by the end of 2023; 

(f) Abolishing general principles of EU law in UK law by the end of 2023; 

(g) Establishing a new priority rule requiring retained direct EU legislation (RDEUL) to be interpreted and applied consistently with domestic legislation; 

(h) Downgrading the status of RDEUL for the purpose of amending it more easily;

(i) Creating a suite of powers that allow REUL to be revoked or replaced, restated or updated and removed or amended to reduce burdens.

The bill as introduced consists of 23 clauses and 3 schedules.

I shall follow the progress of the bill and its application to intellectual property law.  Anyone wishing to discuss this topic may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact page.

Unified Patent Court Opening Soon

Jane Lambert

According to its Implementation Roadmap, the Unified Patent Court ("UPC") will open for business on 1 April 2023.  It published a list of judges on 19 Oct 2022 (see Unified Patent Court judicial appointments and Presidium elections 19 Oct 2022) and will launch a new website on 7 Nov 2022 (see New Unified Patent Court website launch 13 Oct 2022).

The UPC judiciary will consist of 85 judges.   Thirty-four of them are legally qualified and fifty-one technically qualified.  The President of the Court of Appeal will be Klaus Grabinski, a justice of the German Supreme Court, and the President of the Court of First Instance will be Florence Butin of the Paris Court of Appeal.  Sadly there will be no British judges despite the contribution of British lawyers and others to the UPC's establishment because of the British government's withdrawal from the UPC Agreement (see Volte Face on the Unified Patent Court Agreement 29 Feb 2022 NIPC News).

The announcement of a new UPC website states that it will contain the following information:

• Court locations;
• Registry and Sub-Registries contact information;
• Legal documents published;
• Committees Representatives;
• Official communications from the UPC;
• Job vacancies
• Information on the judges.

Even though the UPC will have no jurisdiction over the UK, a court that will cover the territories of most of the EU member states will be of interest to British businesses and institutions.   It should simplify enforcement and reduce costs and the uncertainties of litigation.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article is welcome to call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during British office hours or send me a message through my contact page. 

Protecting Intellectual Assets Abroad

World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") Geneva

Author Emmanuel Berrod  Licence CC BY-SA 4.0  Source  flicker

 

Jane Lambert

Whenever an inventor applies for a British patent, he or she makes a bargain with the British public.  In return for disclosing "the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art" the inventor is granted a monopoly of the the invention  in the United Kingdom for up to 20 years.   Folks outside the United Kingdom are not privy to that agreement so unless the inventor applies for patents elsewhere, there is nothing to stop a competitor from making, selling  or using the invention overseas.

As other countries' patent laws require the invention to be new at the time of the application, inventors had to apply for patents simultaneously to the intellectual property offices of all the countries in which they sought patent protection.  As can be imagined, that could be expensive and complicated.  The financial and administrative burden was mitigated by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which allowed applicants to backdate their applications to the date of their first application provided they filed their second and subsequent applications within a year of the first application.  That is known as a "right of priority" which is granted by art 4 of the Convention.

Having 12 months in which to file foreign patent applications certainly made life easier for applicants but they still had to make separate applications to each intellectual property office.  On 17 Oct 1977, the European Patent Convention ("EPC") came into force.   The EPC established the European Patent Office ("EPO") which grants patents known as "European patents" for the territories of the governments that are party to that Convention.   Despite their name, European patents are not patents for the whole continent or even the European Union.  They are granted for designated contracting states 

on behalf of the governments of those states.  A European patent designating the UK is known as a European patent (UK) and is treated for almost all practical purposes as if it had been granted by the Intellectual Property Office.in Newport.  The great advantage of applying to the EPO is that applications can be made simultaneously for European patents for up to 39 states from a single filing.  

On 1 June 1978, the Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT") came into force.   That Treaty enables patent applications to be made simultaneously to up to 156  states from a single filing.   Applications can be made directly or indirectly to the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") which is the UN specialist agency for intellectual property.  If requested, the WIPO will carry out an international preliminary examination which will examine the invention for novelty, inventiveness and utility.  If the examination is favourable the applicant can ask for the application to be forwarded to the national intellectual property offices for further consideration.   More information on the EPO and PCT is offered by the IPO in Protecting Your Patent Abroad which was last updated on 1 July 2022.

Art 4 of the Paris Convention confers a 6-month right of priority from the date of the first application upon applicants for trade marks and registered designs.  While the UK was in the European Union, applicants had the choice of applying to national intellectual property offices for the registration of national trade marks or designs or to the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") for the registration of European Union trade marks or registered Community designs which applied to the UK and the other 27 member states of the EU. Since 31 Dec 2020 EU trade marks and registered Community designs have continued to apply to the remaining 27 member states but not here.  Accordingly, UK brand or design owners can still apply to the EUIPO for new EU trade mark or RCD registrations.

Just as the PCT enables applications to be made for patents in many countries from a single filing the Madrid Protocol facilitates multiple trade mark applications from a single filing.   Updated guidance on applications for EU trade marks and the Madrid Protocol is provided by the IPO in Protecting your trade mark abroad.  Similarly, the Hague Agreement permits multiple design registration applications from a single filing.   Details on applications for registered Community designs and under the Hague Agreement are available from the IPO in Protecting your Design Abroad.

Owners of UK copyrights will acquire automatically corresponding local copyrights in countries that are party to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.  Similarly, owners of rights in performances in the UK will acquire automatically local corresponding rights in countries that are party to the Rome Convention (International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations).   Guidance from the IPO is in Protecting your Copyright Abroad.  

There is no equivalent to unregistered design right in most countries.  In some, however.  designs that are protected by unregistered design rights in the UK may be registered as utility models which are unknown in this country.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form. at any other time.

IP Dispute Resolution before the Netherlands Commercial Court

Amsterdam

Author Ank Kumar  Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia

 

Jane Lambert

The Netherlands Commercial Court is a chamber of the Amsterdam District Court which conducts proceedings and delivers judgments in English,  I discussed its formation in The Netherlands Commercial Court - an English Speaking Court in Amsterdam on 2 Aug 2020.

The Court publishes a bimonthly newsletter called NCC News Update.  A recent issue announced that several judges specializing in intellectual property law had joined the Court.  According to the fact sheet NCC and Intellectual Property, those judges are:

• Judge Diekman (Rotterdam District Court) 
• Judge Van Heemstra (Gelderland District Court) 
• Judge Loos (The Hague District Court) 
• Judge Hofmeijer-Rutten (Rotterdam District Court and Amsterdam Court of Appeal) 
• Judge Tjong Tjin Tai (sitting by designation) (Professor of Private Law at Tilburg University, specializing in IP and IT law), and
• Judge Bernt Hugenholtz (sitting by designation) (Professor of IP Law at the University of Amsterdam).

The NCC cannot try patent infringement or validity claims because these are reserved for the Hague District Court as are plant variety and EU trade mark and Community design cases but it can hear everything else including licensing and other disputes arising relating to patents, plant varieties and EU trade mark and Community designs.   Its jurisdiction therefore covers copyright, Benelux trade marks and designs, rights in performances, trade secrets and unfair competition cases.   

This court could be a serious competitor to London in that costs are lower and its judgments can be enforced throughout Europe under the Brussels Recast Regulation (see NCC and other European commercial courts.   English lawyers lost their rights of audience when the UK left the European Union but judges will allow them occasionally to make written or oral submissions  (see FAQ  "Can a foreign lawyer speak in court").

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me during normal UK office hours on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact page.

IPO's Guidance on Australia

Australian Swagman

Unknown author - NSW GovtPrinter,
Public Domain,

Jane Lambert

On 28 June 2022, the UK Intellectual Property Office published a new intellectual property guide to Australia.  This one-page guide contains information on the following topics:

• Trade marks
• Patents
• Designs
• Copyright
• Enforcement, and
• Sources of further information.

The guide does not mention the phasing out of utility models known as "innovation patents" which once attracted considerable interest from inventors and their advisors in the UK.  Nor does it mention plant breeders' rights which are important to a major food and wine producing nation.  

The reason for the publication is that Her Majesty's Government has recently negotiated a free trade agreement with the government of Australia.  There are already strong ties between the two countries. The IPO's press release states that there are a million UK citizens in Australia and that the UK's trade with that country was just under £10 billion in 2021.  When the free trade agreement comes into force, the IPO expects more opportunities for British companies in digital and services as well as luxury and other high-value goods.

I outlined the free trade agreement in The Free Trade Agreement with Australia on 20 Dec 2021.  I discussed the IP provisions of the agreement in Intellectual Property Articles of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: General Provisions on 3 Jan 2022.   Readers will find links to all the resources that I have collected on Australia on my "Australia" page.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or any of the topics mentioned in it may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Extension of NZ Copyright Term

 

Jane Lambert

New Zealand is a country of just over 5.1 million people on the other side of the world.  It was, however,  the third-largest music streaming market for UK artists in 2020 according to the Department for International Trade (see DIT News Story UK music execs hail benefits of UK-New Zealand trade deal  16 April 2022). It adds: "the enhanced protections secured in this forward-looking trade agreement will strengthen this creative cultural relationship." 

The enhanced protection to which the news story refers is art 17.48 (1) of the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement which provides:

"Each Party shall provide that the rights of an author of a work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after the author’s death."

As s.12 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 already complies with art 2 of Berne, art 17.48 (1) of the FTA requires the amendment of s.22 of the New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 to extend the duration of copyright protection in New Zealand for another 20 years.

The DIT considers this extension of sufficient importance to place it on the front page of its website.  It quotes Geoff Taylor, Chief Executive BPI, BRIT Awards and Mercury Prize as follows:

"We are grateful to the Government for their dedication to promoting our world-leading IP standards and hope that this will continue to be a priority in further negotiations taking place around the world.”  

The news story is not just about the extension of the duration of copyright in New Zealand.  It also features a business that makes guitars. 

Readers who want to know more about the IP provisions of the free trade agreement may refer to my article The New Zealand Free Trade Agreement: IP Provisions of 24 Oct 2021 in which I discussed the IP provisions of what was then the proposed agreement.  In the agreed treaty the IP provisions are to be found in section 17.  I have indexed my articles on New Zealand here.

 Anyone requiring further information about copyright protection outside the UK should call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Art 67 of the Withdrawal Agreement and Art 132 of the EUTMR - Crafts Group LLC v M/S Indeutsch International

Author Sadarama Licence CC BY-SA 4.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

Jane Lambert

Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (Mr Ian Karet) Crafts Group LLC v M/S Indeutsch International and another [2021] EWHC 3505 (IPEC) (23 Dec 2021)

This was an application by the defendants, M/S Indeutsch International and M/S KnitPro International ("KnitPro"), for the following relief:

• an order to set aside service in India of proceedings brought by the claimant, Crafts Group LLC ("Crafts") for groundless threats under s.21 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, 
• a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over the KnitPro; or 
• alternatively, for a stay of proceedings pending determination of the validity of one of the trade marks in dispute by the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO").

The threats of which the Crafts complained were two takedown notices that had been sent by the defendants' solicitors.to Amazon.  They concerned two of Crafts knitting needles.   The claimant alleged that Amazon would not relist its knitting needles unless the notices were withdrawn or there was an intervention by the court.  Permission to serve the proceedings outside the jurisdiction had been granted by HH Judge Hacon.   The invalidity proceedings in the EUIPO had been. started by the claimant's predecessor, Crafts American Group.  

KnitPro complained that service of the threats action had been defective because the application notice and evidence in support of the application for permission to serve process overseas had not been served on them.  Secondly, KnotPro said that Crafts had failed to make full and frank disclosure at the hearing of its application which was made without notice and in KnitPro's absence.  Alternatively, KnitPro argued that the invalidity proceedings should be allowed to take their course.

The application came on before Mr Ian Karet sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court on 23 Nov 2021. The learned deputy delivered judgment on 23 Dec 2021 (see Crafts Group LLC v M/S Indeutsch International and another  [2021] EWHC 3505 (IPEC) (23 Dec 2021).

Mr Karet considered first the application to set arise service of the threats action proceedings.  He directed himself that CPR 6.36 enables the court to permit service out of the jurisdiction if any of the grounds set out in para 3.1 of PD 6B applies. CPR 6.37 requires an application to set out the relevant ground(s) for service out of the jurisdiction. The court will give permission only if it is satisfied that England and Wales is the proper place in which to bring the claim.. CPR 6.38 provides for service of any document other than a claim form.   Applications for permission to serve process outside the jurisdiction are made under CPR Part 23.  CPR23.10 entitles a person who was not served with a copy of the application notice for a without notice order to apply to have the order set aside or varied.

The deputy judge declined to set aside service for failure to serve the application notice and supporting evidence,  He referred to CPR 3.10 which provides:

"Where there has been an error of procedure such as a failure to comply with a rule or practice direction—
(a) the error does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings unless the court so orders; and
(b) the court may make an order to remedy the error." 

He also considered the Court of Appeal's judgment in  Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 and the commentary on that case in the White Book at paras 3.9.3, 3.9.4 and 3.9.7, In his view, KnitPro had not been significantly disadvantaged by the belated provision of the application notice and evidence given to the court on the application for service out. The making of the service out order was not conditional upon the service of those documents. Failure to serve those documents does not render the service ineffective. The error could be remedied by an order under CPR 3.10.   He reached the same conclusion by considering Denton by analogy even though that case was not directly applicable.

Turning to the alleged failure to give full and frank disclosure, Mr Karet listed the alleged deficiencies as follows:

"i) The evidence did not fairly present to the court the fact that there was no correspondence between the parties in relation to alleged unjustified threats from July 2015, when the first takedown notice was submitted to Amazon UK, to November 2020.
ii) Crafts did not show the court that there had been a second takedown request submitted to Amazon in November 2015, as to which Crafts did and said nothing.
iii) On the basis of these facts, there would at least be open to KnitPro an argument that Crafts had impliedly consented to, or acquiesced to, its takedown requests. The court was not told that.
iv) Crafts appeared to tell the court in general terms the subject-matter of without prejudice discussions between the parties. But the information Crafts gave was wrong. KnitPro's position was that there was no such discussion about any alleged threats action at all.
v) Crafts' evidence in support wrongly suggested that the threats of infringement proceedings were ongoing. Crafts incorrectly elided present threats with ongoing damage from earlier threats.
vi) Crafts did not inform the court that the absence of infringement proceedings in the UK could not simply be taken to indicate that the Caspian and Sunstruck needles did not in fact infringe the Chevron and Symfonie Marks, as Crafts asserted.
vii) Crafts' account of the EU invalidity proceedings was incomplete and imprecise."

 The learned deputy declined to set aside service on the ground of material non-disclosure.  In his view, the correct test for full and frank disclosure on an application for service outside the jurisdiction is that set out by Mr Justice Toulson between paras [23] and [31] of his judgment in MRG (Japan) Limited v Engelhard Metals Japan Limited [2003] EWHC 3418 (Comm), [2004] 1 LLR 731, [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 731:

"[23] The starting point is that an applicant for an order on a without notice application must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts, that is, facts known to the applicant which might reasonably be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether to grant the application: R v Kensington Income Tax Commissioners ex parte Princess Edmund De Polignac [1917] 1 KB 486, 514 (Scrutton LJ); Siporex Trade SA v Comdel Commodities Limited [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 428, 437 (Bingham J); Brink's Mat Limited v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350, 1356 (Ralph Gibson LJ).
[24]. It is for the court to determine what is material according to its own judgment and not the assessment of the applicant: Brink's Mat Limited v Elcombe. This means that if the court considers there to have been material non-disclosure, it is not an answer that the applicant in good faith took a different view, although that may affect the court's exercise of its discretion in deciding what to do in the light of the non-disclosure. It does not mean that an applicant is under a duty to disclose facts which could not reasonably have a bearing on the decision which the judge has to make.
[25- Materiality therefore depends in every case on the nature of the application and the matters relevant to be known by the judge when hearing it. I was referred to a number of statements on the duty of disclosure in the context of applications for freezing injunctions. In such cases the court is being asked to make an order of an exceptional kind, prohibiting or restricting a defendant's use of its own assets before any adjudication has been made against it. Because of its draconian nature, it is a jurisdiction which requires great caution and a wide range of factors may have a bearing on the court's decision.
[26]. An application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction is of a very different nature. The general principles about disclosure on without notice applications still apply, but the context is different. The focus of the inquiry is on whether the court should assume jurisdiction over a dispute. The court needs to be satisfied that there is a dispute properly to be heard (i.e. that there is a serious issue to be tried); that there is a good arguable case that the court has jurisdiction to hear it; and that England is clearly the appropriate forum. Beyond that, the court is not concerned with the merits of the case.
[27]. Authority supports this approach. In BP Exploration Co (Libya) Limited v Hunt [1976] 3 AER 879 (which concerned an application for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction) Kerr J said at 893:

'In my view, a failure to refer to arguments on the merits which the defendant may seek to raise in answer to the plaintiff's claim at the trial should not generally be characterised as a failure to make a full and fair disclosure, unless they are of such weight that their omission may mislead the court in exercising its jurisdiction under the rule and its discretion whether or not to grant leave.'

…
[29] If MRG was aware of matters which might reasonably have caused the judge to have any doubt whether he should grant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, those would have been relevant matters and therefore ought to have been disclosed. This must be so in principle, and it is implicit in the authorities to which I have referred.
[30] However, Mr Gruder submitted that the duty of disclosure was wider. He submitted that if an applicant knew matters which would not on any reasonable view make any difference to whether there was a serious issue to be tried, or to any of the other questions which the judge had to consider, but which were relevant to the ultimate merits of the action, they must be disclosed. To the question "why?", Mr Gruder's answer was that: i) it is for the court and not for the applicant to decide what is material and ii) anything which is relevant to the merits of the claim is potentially relevant to the matters which the judge has to consider. I do not accept that submission. The first proposition is correct, but Mr Gruder seeks to apply it in such a way as to enlarge the test of materiality. It is for the court to determine what is material, but the test of materiality is that to which I have referred: whether the matter might reasonably be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether to grant the application. The second proposition goes too far. There may be many points which would be relevant to the ultimate merits of an action, but which could not on any reasonable view affect the judge in deciding the "merits threshold" question (or the ultimate question whether to grant the application).
[31]. Mr Gruder submitted that if the applicant is not required to disclose all matters which go to the merits of the action, but only those matters which go to the questions whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether the court has jurisdiction to hear it and whether England is clearly the appropriate forum, the result will be to reduce the judge's role on such an application to a "rubber stamping" exercise. I would not agree with that description, although I do agree that the issues which the judge is required to consider are limited. This is because the judge is at this stage concerned with the question whether the court should assume jurisdiction, rather than with the question who is likely to win."

Mr Karet explained at para [41] of his judgment:

"While the evidence in support of service in this case may have mis-described matters, this was by mistake. The complaints KnitPro raise about the evidence do not go to the question of whether this court has jurisdiction over the alleged threats. Instead, they are matters that may be raised in defence to the threats claim. KnitPro are in effect adopting the unsuccessful approach which Toulson J dismissed in MRG of concentrating upon matters that may be relevant to the ultimate merits of the action rather than whether there was a serious issue to be tried. Accordingly I do not think there has been material non-disclosure in this context."

For good measure, the deputy judge added at [42]:

"If there had been material non-disclosure then I would also have dismissed the application on the basis that the judge would have given permission had the full facts been before him."

The last issue before Mr Karet was whether to stay the threats action pending the invalidity application in the EUPO.  The defendants argued that art 67 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community continued to apply art 132 of the European Union Trade Mark Regulation which provided:

"An EU trade mark court hearing an action referred to in Article 124 other than an action for a declaration of non-infringement shall, unless there are special grounds for continuing the hearing, of its own motion after hearing the parties or at the request of one of the parties and after hearing the other parties, stay the proceedings where the validity of the EU trade mark is already in issue before another EU trade mark court on account of a counterclaim or where an application for revocation or for a declaration of invalidity has already been filed at the Office."

The Chancellor had held in Easygroup Limited v Beauty Perfectionists Limited [2021] EWHC 3385 (Ch), [2022] Bus LR 146, [2022] WLR(D) 7 that art 67 of the withdrawal agreement has direct effect as part of domestic law without the need for any further legislative enactment.  Mr Karet also referred to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Starbucks (HK) Ltd v. British Sky Broadcasting Group plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1201 that there is a strong presumption in favour of a stay.   The Court added that "special grounds" within the meaning of art 132 are hard to make out and that a general argument about getting to the end of proceedings is unlikely to be sufficient.

Mr Karet declined to order a stay pending the outcome of the validity proceedings in the EUIPO.   Art 124 listed a number of causes of actions that were reserved for EU trade mark courts but threats actions were not one of them.  

Anyone wishing to discuss this article can call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Unified Patent Court Prepares to Open

Author Jean-Noel Lafargue Licence CC BY-SA 2.5 Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

The Administrative Committee of the Unified Patent Court is one of three committees that have been established by art 11 of the Agreement on a Unified Patents Court to ensure the effective implementation and operation of that Agreement.  It held its first meeting on 22 Feb 2022 following Austria's deposit of its instrument of ratification (see The UPC is now on the Final Stretch but the UK won't be part of it 27 Jan 2022).

In an Announcement on the Unified Patent Court Administrative Committee’s inaugural meeting published by the Court on 23 Feb 2022, the meeting was described as "historic" as it marked the birth of the court as an international organization. The meeting took place in the building that has been earmarked for the Court of Appeal and Registry in Luxembourg.   The Committee adopted rules of procedure, rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate and other qualifications, Service, Staff and Financial Regulations. It elected Alexander Ramsay who had previous;y chaired the Preparatory Committee as its chair. Ir also chose the members of the Advisory Committee who will interview applicants for judicial appointments from the end of March.

The contracting parties also gave details of the local and regional divisions that they plan to set up. Germany plans to set up four at Dusseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim and Munich, France one at Paris, Italy one in Milan and Sweden a regional one for itself and its Baltic neighbours in Stockholm.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article can call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form at other times.