How much Work is London losing to Continental English Speaking Commercial Courts?

 

Jane Lambert

In English Speaking Commercial Courts in France, Germany and the Netherlands bid for London's Work which I posted on 4 April 2021, I discussed how the UK's withdrawal from the European Union had been seen as an opportunity for lawyers and judicial authorities in France, the Netherlands and other countries to grab some of London's lucrative, international, commercial litigation work.  The Dutch authorities responded by establishing the Netherlands Commercial Court as an English-speaking commercial in Amsterdam.  In Paris, some of the proceedings before the International Chamber of the Paris Commercial Court and an International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal take place in English (see Présentation générale CCIP-CA / The ICCP-CA.  There are also proposals to set up similar English-speaking commercial courts in Belgium, Germany and Switzerland.

This month the Netherlands Commercial Court published a News Update which contained an article entitled Brexit: Europe sees emergence of specialist commercial courts to compete with the UK (Chessa, IBA).  It refers to a short article by Sara Chessa dated 17 March 2023 on the International Bar Association's website. Although the News Update quotes the opinion of Mr Martin Poelman that the Netherlands Commercial Court has very good judges whose judgments are perceived as good and solid and Dries Beljon's view that litigation in that court is quicker and cheaper in that court than elsewhere, Ms Chessa's article does not suggest that the Dutch or French courts are taking much (if any) work away from London.  She notes that between its opening in 2019 and 2022, the Netherlands Commercial Court saw only 16 cases, according to a publication by the Court,   If she was referring to the judgments page of the court's website there have been 16 judgments between opening and 23 April 2023.  Ms Chessa also quotes Nick Vineall KC who denied that London had lost any business at all since Brexit and that if anything the courts and arbitrators are busier than ever.

It is, of course, very early days.   Litigation under the inquisitorial system is obviously cheaper than under a procedure where contestant law firms leave no stone unturned.  Also, exclusion from Lugano will impede the enforcement of judgments of the UK's courts in the EU (see EU Commission rejects the UK's Application to rejoin Lugano 6 May 2021).  As an intellectual property lawyer, I am anxious that the Netherlands Commercial Court is pitching for soft IP work with its factsheet NCC and Intellectual Property.  The court's most recent judgment concerns intellectual property and ownership of data (see Diamedica Therapeutics Inc. v Pharmaceutical Research Associates Group BV NCC 22/018 (C/13/730389) 23 April 2023). From 1 June 2023, the Patents Court and Intellectual Property Enterprise Court face competition from the Unified Patent Court.

Apologists for brexit contend that any loss of business in Europe will be more than made up by increasing business with the rest of the world.  That is yet to be borne out by experience but even if it turns out to be the case for British business as a whole it may not turn out to be so for the legal services sector.   In the EU England and Wales was by far the largest English-speaking common law jurisdiction.   In the wider world, London faces competition from other powerful English-speaking common law courts in the USA, the Commonwealth, the Arabian Gulf and even Kazakhstan.

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 page. 

Unified Patent Court Update

Jane Lambert

 

Much has happened since my last article on the Unified Patent Court ("UPC").  The court will open for business on 1 June 2023 and not on 1 April 2023 as I stated on 22 Oct 2022 to allow users more time to prepare themselves for the strong authentication which will be required to access the court's case management system ("the CMS") and to sign documents (see Adjustment of the timeline – Start of the Sunrise Period on 1 March 2023 on the UPC's website 5 Dec 2022). The new website which I mentioned in my previous article is now up and running at https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en.

The new website displays 

• photos of the UPC's buildings, 
• a map of Europe showing the EU member states in blue, member states that have signed the Unified Patent Court Agreement in a darker shade of blue, the states in which the agreement will come into force on 1 June 2023 in dark blue and everywhere else including the UK in grey,
• information on opt-out, registration as a representative before the UPC and FAQ,
• the latest news, and
• important links 

on its home page,

The court's judges whose appointment I mentioned in my previous article have now undergone advanced preparatory training in the UPC's Rules of Procedure (see Launch of the first training for all UPC appointed judges 17 Jan 2023).  Training in the court's internal rules and practice was also given to court staff immediately afterwards (see Update on UPC Training Activities 10 Feb 2023).  Alexander Ramsay, who chaired the committee that handled all the preparatory work, has been appointed the court's first Registrar and Axel Jacobi has been appointed as his deputy (see The Unified Patent Court appoints its first Registrar and Deputy-Registrar  19 Jan 2023).

Germany deposited its instrument of ratification of the UPC Agreement on 17 Feb 2023 nearly 10 years after it had signed it thereby permitting the sunrise period to start on 1 March 2023 (see Germany ratifies the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court  21 Feb 2023).  The sunrise period has now started and holders of European patents can now decide whether they want to opt out of the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC pursuant to art 83 (3) of the UPC Agreement.   To help them to do so, the court has provided information on filing an opt-out and the following FAQ.

Those who are eligible to practise before the UPC may now apply to be listed as representatives before the court pursuant to art 48 (3) of the UPC agreement.  These include 

• lawyers authorized to practise before the courts of a Contracting Member State pursuant to art 48 (1) and 
• European Patent Attorneys who are entitled to act as professional representatives before the European Patent Office pursuant to art 134 of the EPC and who have appropriate qualifications such as a European Patent Litigation Certificate pursuant to art 48 (2).  

Art 2 (c) defines "Contracting Member State" as  "a Member State party to this Agreement".  Rgar would seem to include countries that have signed the UPC Agreement but not yet ratified it such as the Republic of Ireland.  In this regard, readers are reminded that James Bridgeman SC is a member of these chambers

Anyone requiring further information may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact page.

The Northern Ireland Protocol: The Windsor Framework

Author Maximilian Dorrbecker Licence CC BY-SA 2.5   Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

One of the provisions of the settlement that ended the inter-communal violence in Northern Ireland was that there should be no immigration controls or customs posts between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.  There was no problem in complying with that provision so long as the United Kingdom and the Republic remained members of the European Union. When HM government made clear that the United Kingdom would leave not only the EU but also the single market and customs union there was a risk that the Irish Republic would have to restore border controls in order to maintain the integrity of the European single market. 

There were two ways of preventing that outcome:

• the whole UK could continue to abide by at least some of the single market rules;  or
• Northern Ireland could remain in the single market but there would be customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mrs May proposed the first course believing that no British Prime Minister would countenance a border between two parts of the United Kingdom but her party failed to support her. Her successor opted for the second which was supported by the party. The option was eventually incorporated into 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 as the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.

The difficulties that Mrs May had anticipated quickly occurred.  As I noted in British Proposals for Renegotiating the Northern Ireland Protocol on 29 July 2021:

"Immediately after the end of the implementation or transition period provided by art 126 of the withdrawal agreement, there was disruption in the supply of goods from Britain to Northern Ireland. These led to street protests and calls for the denunciation of the Protocol if not the whole of the withdrawal agreement."

The British government's objections to the Protocol were set out in the position paper, Northern Ireland Protocol: the way forward (CP 502).  The administration of the previous Prime Minister but one introduced legislation into the House of Commons which would have required courts and civil servants to disapply those provisions of the Protocol to which the government objected.  In response, the European Commission indicated that it was prepared to negotiate changes to the Protocol and its application which would meet at least some of the British government's objections while reserving its right to bring non-compliance proceedings should the government continue on its course.

Such negotiations were begun by the administration of the former Prime Minister but one and were continued by his successors. They have resulted in the release of a flurry of documents from the UK and the Commission on 27 Feb 2023 which are referred to collectively as "the Windsor Framework."  Probably the most important of those documents is the Windsor Political Declaration by the European Commission and the Government of the United Kingdom which sets out the understanding of the British government and the Commission to change the operation of the Protocol.  The declaration is not a treaty but a statement of the parties' intentions.   It will have to be implemented by legislation in both the UK and the EU.

One of the other documents released by HM government is  The Windsor Framework: A New Way Forward presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister at the command of the King.  That sets out the British government's explanation and amplification of the Political Declaration and its arguments in favour of it.  The equivalent document from the Commission is a fact sheet which can be downloaded from The Windsor Framework: a new way forward for the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland on the Commission's website.

The Windsor Framework is not a done deal.  Scepticism has been expressed by some politicians in England and Northern Ireland. However, the Labour Party has offered to support the government in passing implementing legislation which should enable it to outvote any opposition from Conservative and Ulster Unionist MPs.

As this is primarily an intellectual property blog I do not propose to chronicle the implementation of the Framework. However. it does mark an improvement in relations between the UK and EU which should facilitate British participation in Horizon Europe.   Such participation should result in inventions in the UK.  This is the most encouraging news that I have been able to report since I set up this publication.   Anyone wishing to discuss this article with me may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during British office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

REUL Bill Second Update

Author Punch Source Wikimedia Commons

 

Jane Lambert

I have already discussed this bill in Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill on 26 Oct 2022 and REUL Bill First Update on 6 Dec 2022,  It has now completed its passage through the House of Commons and will proceed to the House of Lords tomorrow.  The latest version of the bill can be read here.

Ahead of its second reading in the Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considers the policy effects of statutory instruments and other types of secondary legislation, has published Losing Control?: The Implications for Parliament of the retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill.  The members of the Committee (Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, The Earl of Lindsay, Lord De Mauley, Lord Lisvane, Lord German, Lord Powell of Bayswater, Viscount Hanworth, Lord Rowlands. Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Baroness Watkins of Tavistock and Lord Hutton of Furness) have done so because they believe that the proposed legislation is an extreme example of a skeleton bill which would lead to a significant shift of power from Parliament to ministers.  

As their mandate is to scrutinize secondary legislation it is unusual for the Committee to report on primary legislation.  They explain that they have taken that exceptional step because they have power to consider “general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of secondary legislation” which this bill is likely to affect.

Their concern with the sunset clauses is that important legislation may disappear inadvertently from the statute book. They fear that ministers and their officials may simply overlook important provisions.  They add that there is no machinery for MPs to intervene on behalf of concerned constituents.  As to the proposed power of ministers to amend EU regulations and directives by statutory instrument, they call for an amendment of the bill to enable Parliament as a whole to amend important legislative instruments.  They call for explanatory memoranda to be produced on every piece of legislation likely to lapse or be modified.

The Bar Council, which had previously briefed peers on the bill, welcomes the Committee's report. In his press release Retained EU Law Bill will damage UK’s reputation, says Bar Council of 3 Feb 2023  the Chair of the Bar warned that "the bill in its present form, will damage the UK’s reputation for regulatory stability, predictability, and competence on which growth-promoting investment in critical sectors of our economy depends."

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.

IP in Canada

Author John Picken Licence CC BY 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

Jane Lambert

On 30 Jan 2023, I discussed the Intellectual Property Office's guidance on  IP in New Zealand  (see IP in New Zealand).  The IPO has published similar guidance entitled IP in Canada.  Like the New Zealand guidance, it covers trade marks, patents, designs, copyrights and enforcement.  It has links to the Department for International Trade's Exporting Guide to Canada and Report a Trade Barrier pages, the British Canadian Chamber of Trade and Commerce and the UK's IP attaché for North America at the British embassy in Washington DC.

The guidance states that the intellectual property authority for Canada is the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ("CIPO").   According to its home page, CIPO is a special operating agency of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada which delivers intellectual property services in Canada and educates Canadians on how to use IP more effectively.  Its services include examining applications for patents, trade marks and industrial designs and the registration of copyrights and integrated circuit topographies. Its education, tools and resources include information on green technology. managing IP, data and research, an IP academy, an IP hub, an IP toolbox, events, webinars and seminars, a newsletter and other publications.  CIPO also publishes several blogs.

It would appear from the guidance that Canadian trade mark, patent, industrial designs and copyright laws are similar to ours.  The main differences seem to be a grace period for patents and a registration system for copyrights,  Applications for patents, trade marks and designs can be made directly to CIPO or through international conventions.

Infringement actions can be brought in the civil courts although the guidance warns that litigation is expensive and time-consuming.   Arbitration, mediation and expert determination are also available,  Information on enforcement can be obtained from the IPHub Enforcement/Infringement.  The Canadian Border Services Agency can intercept and detain counterfeit goods or pirate copies of copyright works.

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

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.