double_arrow
Article Archive

double_arrow Ask an Expert

reCAPTCHA

What Our Customers Say...

5.0
Based on 101 reviews
powered by Google
26dragon76 profile picture
26dragon76
15:31 23 Jul 25
A truly exceptional experience – thank you Albright IP!

I want to personally thank Charlie Heal , Emily Fox, Cara McAtee, and the entire team at Albright IP for their hard work, dedication, and professionalism in helping me submit my first ever patent: the Baffer Ball fire suppression system.

From the very first meeting, Charlie and Emily made everything feel clear, comfortable, and respectful. They listened carefully to my ideas, even though I’m not from a technical or legal background – I’m a painter and decorator by trade. But they believed in my vision and treated it with such care and seriousness that I felt truly supported as an inventor.

Over several months, we worked closely by email and phone. Charlie and the team guided me step by step to build one of the strongest, clearest, and most professional patent drafts I could have hoped for. The claims they wrote are powerful, and the language used shows how deeply they understood my invention. They didn’t just file a document – they helped shape a legacy.

Charlie, even though he is young, is incredibly professional and experienced. I am amazed at how he managed such a complex project with kindness, patience, and precision. Emily and Cara were also fantastic throughout.

This was not just paperwork – this was my dream since childhood. And Albright IP helped me make that dream real.

💬 I look forward to working with them again on future patents. The Baffer Ball is just the beginning – and I am proud that Albright IP was there from Day 1.

Thank you so much again — from the bottom of my heart.
— Morteza
Jilna Shah profile picture
Jilna Shah
07:13 13 Jul 25
I've been working with Marc Maidment on pursuing a patent for my business, and I honestly couldn’t ask for a better attorney. As someone with no experience with the patent process and how it works, Marc takes the time to explain everything clearly and thoroughly, breaking down complex legal processes in a way that is easy to understand.

He’s not only incredibly knowledgeable, but also warm and approachable. No question has ever felt too small, and he genuinely cares about the success of my business. I’d highly recommend Marc to anyone looking for a dedicated, trustworthy, and skilled patent attorney.
Jon Baker profile picture
Jon Baker
15:23 19 Mar 25
Albright IP have been brilliant from my first call all the way through to submitting our Patent Application. I look forward to working with them on future IP projects. Jon Baker - Design 360 Ltd
See All Reviews


double_arrow
Need a Product Designer?


double_arrow
Helpful Tips

Do I have to identify the designer?
It is possible to waive the name of the designer when filing a European Community Design, but you should be sure that you have the rights to the design

Uncategorised

Cambodia to recognise Chinese patents

China Flag

Not too long ago, Cambodia became a ‘validation state’ for the European Patent Convention (discussed here). This gives the option to extend a European patent into Cambodia.

 

Now Cambodia has introduced another change: a registration-style system based on Chinese patents. This effectively means that if you get a granted Chinese patent, you can apply to receive a corresponding patent in Cambodia without going through a separate examination process.

 

How will the patent registration system work?

 

The registration process effectively requires evidence of the Chinese patent (certified copy of the Chinese patent and patent register entry), and a Khmer translation of the whole patent, along with the relevant forms and fees.

 

Interestingly, the Cambodian system is set up in a way that allows patent protection to be established retroactively. If you have a granted (and in force) Chinese patent that was filed after 22nd January 2003, then you can obtain patent protection in Cambodia. It doesn’t appear that there is any fixed period for doing this.

 

Importantly, other parties who are already using the invention in Cambodia (or have made serious and effective preparations to do so) will be protected from patent infringement. They will be able to continue to do what they were already doing or going to do, assuming they are acting in good faith. In other words, you can’t register your patent now to stop existing dealings, only dealings that begin after your Cambodian patent enters into force.

 

Will other countries follow suit?

 

The Cambodian patent registration system isn’t the first of its kind. A good number of patent offices already place serious weight on the opinions of the major established patent offices in Europe, China and the USA, for example, and it makes sense not to duplicate effort in re-examining the same material.

 

For example, various patent offices (e.g. in Singapore, Indonesia) offer streamlined examination based on the work of other major patent offices, and there is also the PPH (Patent Prosecution Highway) system, although this does not guarantee grant, unlike a registration system.

 

The Hong Kong Patent Office runs a registration system for UK or Chinese patents, but that is a two-stage system which often requires you to file before you know whether you will obtain a patent. The Cambodian system doesn’t require such a gamble – you can apply after receiving a granted Chinese patent. In a similar way, it is also possible to register a granted British patent in various other overseas territories after grant, although this is generally limited to former or existing Commonwealth territories.

 

It is entirely feasible that other countries could start to implement similar registration systems, to avoid the costs of growing their existing patent infrastructure and/or to encourage investment from international businesses. The number of patent applications being filed around the world is increasing year on year, and removing barriers to patenting via registration systems would seem to present an attractive option for encouraging foreign companies to patent and invest in local operations.

 

Excluded Inventor Destroys European Patent

padlock 597495 1920 1

 

Broad Institute in the raging CRISPR patent battle with University of California (UC) recently lost their European patent through a simple filing error. How did this come about? And how do you prevent this from happening to you?

 

Let’s quickly look at CRISPR, and why it’s such a hot and contentious topic at the moment, and then what the patent lawyers did wrong.

 

The tables might have just turned in Europe, when the European Patent Office decided last January to revoke a granted patent in the heated CRISPR battle, due to an incorrect chain of entitlement. CRISPR/Cas9 is a novel gene-editing tool involving “molecular scissors” (Cas9) guided by a “molecular sat-nav” (a guide RNA) to a gene of interest. Whilst questions remain surrounding the ethics, the safety and the legislation of genetic editing, this technology holds much promise for agriculture and medicine. In particular, hereditary diseases, such as cancer, could soon be a thing of the past, particularly in light of recent, encouraging scientific progress where the precision of the technology was found to be improved.

 

The gene-editing potential of CRISPR technology was recognised as early as 2008 but it was only in June 2012 and January 2013 that the technology was successfully used to alter DNA, first in vitro, then in human cells. Although researchers initially attempted to collaborate, the group rapidly broke up, resulting in the formation of multiple spin-offs and a fierce patent battle between those represented by University of California (UC) and those by the Broad Institute.

 

Thus far, the Broad group has been prevailing in the United States. In Europe, it is a different story. On 17 January 2018, the European Patent Office (EPO) revoked a key patent granted to the Broad group (EP 2771468), which claimed priority from US patents, the first of which was filed in December 2012. The reason? A discrepancy between the applicants on the patent and those listed on the priority documents.

 

In the United States, a patent application may be filed in the name of the inventor. When there is an assignment from the inventor to the new applicant occurring after the filing date, the assignment does not need to occur before filing a PCT application. This is because US law only requires a subsequent application claiming priority from an earlier application to have at least one joint inventor in common, i.e., not all inventor-applicants need to be listed when filing the PCT.

 

In Europe, however, all the applicants need to be included on a patent application at the time of filing. Should this not be the case, then claiming the priority of an earlier application is invalid.

 

In this case, priority documents included Luciano Marraffini as an inventor, but he was excluded from the subsequently-filed PCT document upon which the now revoked European patent was based. Furthermore, there appears to be no assignment of his rights to the Broad Institute, the applicant, prior to the PCT filing. Therefore, Luciano Marraffini was an inventor and applicant on the priority document, but did not transfer his rights to the Broad group before the PCT was filed. This means that, under European patent law, one of the applicants of the priority documents was missing at the time of filing the subsequent PCT. In essence, the chain of entitlement was not clear and the claim to priority was invalid.

 

As EP 2771468 could no longer rely on the earlier priority date, the EPO then found that intervening disclosure had occurred. This means that material, disclosed within EP 2771468, was already known at the time of the European filing. Therefore, EP 2771468 was no longer a valid patent.

 

The decision to revoke EP 2771468 could give UC the upper hand in Europe. However, the Broad group intends to appeal this decision, so the patent battle is far from over.

 

What lessons can be learnt from this saga?

  • Firstly, perseverance can lead to major breakthroughs down the line.
  • Secondly, have the proper chain of entitlement in place at the time of filing. Particularly in territories outside of the USA, failure to do so may not be rectifiable, and can be the difference between being able to claim priority or losing out to a competitor.

 

https://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/epo-revokes-crispr-patent-clear-cut.html

 

“Call a Cab” …the iconic London taxi is not a valid registered Trade Mark?!

Cab

 

The future of the hackney carriage, black cab or London taxi, hangs in the balance as a dispute surrounding whether the shape of the traditional London black cab is a valid registered Trade Mark.

 

In November 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld the January 2016 decision of Mr Justice Arnold in the High Court, who decided that the shape of the London Black Cab does not have enough ‘distinctive character’ to be considered as a ‘valid registered Trade Mark’, and consequently a claim of Passing off was rejected. The decision has given rise to controversy, and the stage appears set for the case to proceed to the Supreme Court.

 

Undoubtedly, a lot is at stake for the London Taxi Corporation Ltd, now renamed the London Electric Vehicle Company Ltd (LEVC). The Court of Appeal judgement means that new-style Black Cabs made by other manufactures could soon flood the streets of London.


The Dispute:

 

The legal proceedings arose because of LEVC attempt to prevent rival manufacturers,  Frazer-Nash Research Ltd and Ecotive Ltd, from producing a new style of London taxi which LEVC claims to be based upon, and infringing their Intellectual Property Rights over the iconic London Cab shape.

 

LEVC is the owner of a number of UK and EU Trade Mark Registrations, which depict the shapes of the FX4 and TX1/TX11 Taxi Models, LEVC is also the proprietor of a registered design for the TX1 model. Ecotive has published its plans to launch a hybrid electric taxi which Sir Charles Masefield, the chairman Metrocab (a joint venture between Frazer Nash and Ecotive), said was “Instantly recognisable as an iconic London Hackney Cab

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”Metrocab had deliberately created a taxi cab which strongly resembled its own pre-existing vehicles and infringed its intellectual property rights.” link=”” color=”#ff6600″ class=”” size=””][/perfectpullquote]

In response LEVC, sought an injunction from the high court to prevent the launch of Metrocab’s hybrid electric taxi, stating that Metrocab had deliberately created a taxi cab which strongly resembled its own pre-existing vehicles and infringed its intellectual property rights.

 

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal reasoned that the shape of the London Taxi Cab had neither enough inherent or acquired distinctive character to allow them to function as Trade Marks.


Inherent distinctiveness:

 

LEVC asserted that the shape depicted in their London Black Cab Trade Marks is inherently distinctive, they suggested that the specific shape of their Black Cabs departed significantly from the general norms of the car industry.

 

Whilst, the presiding judges acknowledged that significant departures in the shape of a product from what is normal or necessary could convey enough inherent distinctiveness to allow a shape to function as a Trade Mark, they observed that the design features which LEVC cited such as the wind screen, bonnet and grille, did not differ substantially from the normal deviation which can be observed in the car industry.

 

The overall impact of the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of the arguments relating to the physical styling features of a London taxi, has set the bar very high in respect of how radical a design must be to be considered inherently distinctive as a Trade Mark.


Acquired distinctiveness:

 

The Court moved on to consider whether distinctive character had been acquired through use. After consideration, the Court stated that it is not sufficient for the Trade Mark holder to show that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognize and associate the Mark with the Trade Mark owner’s goods. He must show that they perceive that the goods designated by the Mark belong to the Trade Mark holder’s undertaking and no other.

 

Whilst the Court acknowledged that when confronted with the shape of a Black Cab, the consumer would perceive a strong association with London, and make assumptions as to the reliability of the driver; ultimately, they would not infer a link between the Trade Mark owner and the product (the Black Cab), and as such the argument for acquired distinctiveness was not proven.


Conclusion

 

This case demonstrates the current pitfalls of registering, enforcing and maintaining Trade Mark registrations in relation to shapes. LEVC are likely to be very adversely affected by the decision, and the door is wide open for their rivals to enter the market with competing products (vehicles). An Appeal to the Supreme Court seems to be on the cards, and there are many interested parties watching from the wings.

 

Here at Albright IP we are carefully keeping an eye on what happens next. An Appeal may lead to the possibility of a shift in the law regarding ‘shape’ Trade Marks, and may also address the fate of the nation’s most beloved form of transport.

 

Real or fake? How Trade Mark Registrations are protecting our online shopping

ecommerce shopping

 

Almost all of us can remember, (Millennials excluded), when the online marketplace was born. It happened almost overnight.

 

No longer did you have to travel to the ‘big town’ to obtain those desired, but elusive goods that you couldn’t just buy at a local shop. The ‘click-purchase’ phenomena rapidly spread from non-existence to becoming a new way of life. That object of desire could be delivered to your doorstep the next day.

 

As we now know, the expansion of online shopping has had an adverse effect on our local high streets; it has expanded beyond luxury items, to grocery and everyday items, delivered at the touch of a button. Times have moved on.

 

Of course, the online market place is not without its issues. The digital environment is a perfect habitat for criminal behaviour. The internet is massive, confusing and relatively ungoverned. It transcends national borders, and the technology upon which it is based is moving faster than any laws that can purport to regulate it. This includes the regulation of cybercrime, and in particular, of online fraud and counterfeiting.

 

[perfectpullquote align=”right” bordertop=”false” cite=” technology upon which it is based is moving faster than any laws that can purport to regulate it.” link=”” color=”#ff9100″ class=”” size=””][/perfectpullquote]

Most online marketplace sellers are legitimate businesses trying to connect with buyers in a quick, convenient and honest way. However, hidden amongst the sheep are individuals selling counterfeit goods, often of inferior quality, displayed with bargain prices. The presence of these ‘rogue’ individuals has a negative effect on consumer confidence, which impacts upon genuine sellers, and the online marketplace itself. The consequence is that some consumers are choosing to turn away from the convenience of online shopping, and head back to the high street, where they feel more assured. This trend represents a hurdle for the big online retailers.

 

In response to this trend, some online retailers, most notably Amazon and eBay; have introduced schemes to curb the spate of online counterfeits which have made their platforms unsafe and uninviting to both sellers and buyers. Amazon’s scheme is known as the ‘Amazon Brand Registry’ and eBay’s system is known as ‘VeRO’ (Verified Rights Owner Programme).

 

The procedure for a legitimate brand owner to invoke these initiatives is relatively simple. In order to have access to the full range of protective services which can result in the site of an unauthorised seller being taken down and blocked, an online form has to be completed.  However, in order to qualify for either of the Amazon or eBay schemes, you must be able to verify that you are the legitimate Intellectual Property Rights holder.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”you must be able to verify that you are the legitimate Intellectual Property Rights holder” link=”” color=”#ff9100″ class=”” size=””][/perfectpullquote]

IP practitioners, including Albright IP, representing owners of registered Trade Marks; are now being inundated with emails from Amazon sellers requesting us to put them in touch with our clients, in order that they can provide them with a ‘verification code’. Without this, they will not be permitted to sell products on Amazon. Online marketplaces are not setting themselves up as an alternative court; they will only look to protect or enforce rights that are legally established, i.e. to take note and respect Registered Trade Marks.

 

At last, the online consumer is being protected, and so too is the genuine online retailer.

 

It is now paramount that you put your shop in order (pardon the pun), so that you can take advantage of the initiatives being launched by the online platforms. Ensuring that you have comprehensive Registrations for your Trade Marks, will put you into the strongest possible position to protect your brand image and quality, as well as giving the consumer piece of mind to keep purchasing your products.

 

Albright IP’s team of experienced Trade Mark Attorneys can guide you forwards to take the maximum advantage of retailing in the online marketplace.

Intellectual Property symbols – what they mean, and when to use them

Branded

 

If you think following the coded instructions to wash your clothes is complicated (all those symbols), welcome to the wonderful world of Intellectual Property rights symbols.

 

IP rights symbols are helpful, but often overlooked tools in an IP rights holder’s arsenal. They are useful to educate the public to the fact that a right exists, and to discourage ‘would be’ infringers from copying. The symbols which are often found accompanying products, logos, designs, literary and other creative works, are a clear indication that someone is claiming ownership over IP rights.

Here at Albright IP, we often receive emails from our clients seeking advice on how to correctly use these valuable symbols. In response, we have written this helpful guide to summarise and simplify this tricky and often misunderstood tool.

Firstly, a general comment; the proper manner to display these symbols is immediately adjacent to the Mark, and commonly in the superscript form. This is not a legal requirement, but it is common practice.

 

Trade Mark ™

 

Use of the symbol indicates an assertion that a word, logo or slogan is a Trade Mark. IP Rights holders use the symbol to indicate that they regard their ‘badge’ as a ‘Trade Mark’ i.e. that they wish others to be on notice of their ownership. The symbol itself does not indicate that a Trade Mark is Registered, or that an Application has been filed to register it; therefore, it can be used in respect of newly created Trade Marks without any delay.

 

Service Mark

 

In the USA, there is a distinction drawn between Trade Marks and Service Marks. Trade Marks relate to products, and Service Marks relate to services. The term Service Mark is not routinely used in the UK or the EU, but the symbol ℠ may sometimes appear on websites or marketing material that is in circulation here.

 

Registered Trade Mark ®

 

The ® symbol is used to provide notice that the proceeding word, logo or other sign, is a Trade Mark that has been registered at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO). The ® symbol is therefore a clear statement of ownership, and an assertion that a Registered right is held.

In many countries, it is against the law to use the ® symbol in respect of a Mark which is not officially Registered.

 

Copyright ©

 

The © symbol is used as part of a Copyright notice for literary, artistic, and musical works other than sound recordings (phonographic works).  The © symbol is widely recognised internationally, but it’s use is not a legal requirement to protect your work. In the UK, a Copyright work is automatically protected at the point when the work is created. However, the © symbol is still useful for reminding the public that your work is subject to Copyright law, and that you are aware of your rights.

A Copyright notice typically consists of: the © symbol; the year of first publication; and the name of the owner. For example:

© 2018 Albright IP Limited.

 

Copyleft (ↄ)

 

The (ↄ) symbol is a relatively new IP symbol, and currently has no legal meaning. Essentially, Copyleft is the practice where a work may be used, modified and distributed by third parties, providing that all derivative works are bound by the same conditions. Therefore, Copyleft is an open licensing agreement, of sorts.

 

Phonogram Copyright ℗

 

The symbol, is used in a Copyright notice for sound recordings. This symbol is therefore used to indicate the ownership of a sound recording. A sound recording embodies a separate copyright to the underlying musical work, and will often have a different owner i.e. the producer.

A Phonogram Copyright notice consists of: the ℗ symbol; the year of first publications; and the name of the owner. For example:

℗ 2018 Albright IP Limited.

The Phonogram Copyright symbol is often mistaken as a symbol indicating a Patent, this is a common misconception.

 

Patent Marking

 

There is no established typographical symbol which indicates that a product is subject to a Patent.

Notwithstanding the absence of an official symbol it is still of paramount importance to mark your Patented products as ‘Patented’. If you don’t mark your products or their packaging, someone can copy them and claim they were unaware of the Patent; this is a legitimate defence under UK Patent law, known as ‘innocent infringement’.

Interestingly, the law specifies that it is not enough to merely mark a product ‘Patented’: if you don’t include the patent number, an infringer may still claim they didn’t know the product was patented.

Although the above comments show the importance and advantages of marking your product as ‘Patented’, there is no legal requirement to mark your product in this way. However, it is against the law to mark a product as ‘Patented’ when it isn’t. This means that when your Patents expire, you are required to remove all ‘Patented’ marking from your products and packaging. The law does allow for a reasonable transition period in this situation, to run down old stock.

As a full service Intellectual Property firm, Albright IP Limited are experienced, knowledgeable, and well placed to advise our client’s on how to use all the tools to make the most of their IP rights.

 

Marc Reflects: What 2018 holds for innovation?

Innovation 2018

 

Innovation can come in waves, with one big innovative earthquake spawning a number of aftershock inventions. There would of course be no ‘light bulb’ moment without the invention of the light bulb. What might 2018 bring in terms of innovation?

1) Your life will become more automated

As a general rule, we all search for ways to make life easier for ourselves. For example, washing machines, hoovers and cars were all developed to make something quicker or require less effort on our part. However, they tend to come with drawbacks – washing machines are usually filled with concrete (but not for much longer), most hoovers use lots of power (but some don’t), and cars pollute the atmosphere and contribute to climate change (no buts).

Google and Amazon have already helped automate list-keeping, amongst others, with their unobtrusive ‘smart speakers’. The drawbacks? They might be listening to everything all the time, and that isn’t high on most people’s list of likes.

What else is there to automate? Plenty. From better identification of mutations in gene sequences, to better modelling of chemical compounds like pharmaceuticals, to self-driving cars, to package delivery by drones, the world is becoming more automated. And artificial intelligence (AI) is a big umbrella encompassing all of those things and more.

Will 2018 be the year of the Multivac? What inventions do you have in the pipeline?

2) The world will get smaller

We’re also always searching for new experiences and destinations, but how will we be getting to those far-flung destinations? Soon the next trip to your local pub or bar could be in a self-driving car – will 2018 be the end of the designated driver? Taxi companies and Uber other car services should be around for a while yet.

With Concorde shackled in a museum, entrepreneurs are trying their hand at supersonic flight. Will they find a way to disperse sonic booms, so that planes can fly at supersonic speeds over land? Will they develop new materials that make planes quieter or more fuel-efficient? Pre-order your ticket to avoid disappointment.

Elon Musk would also quite like to send us all into orbit and back to a destination of our choice by rocket, or on to Mars for an interplanetary jaunt. Whilst that is a few years away, plenty of advancements will arise from those endeavours. Perhaps new materials or fuels? Who thought just a few years ago that rockets would be landing upright? I won’t be flying on anything called Rockety McRocketFace though.

Don’t forget, whilst we’re surrounded by reality, there’s the expanding world of virtual reality (VR) to explore too…

3) Your recycling could become more valuable

We all know that we need to act in a more environmentally friendly way to reduce pollution and tackle climate change. Most of us recycle what we can, and with an impending global shortage of sand (silicate), our used glass containers might be worth something.

Charging for disposable plastic bags in the UK was also a step in the right direction, but the seas are still full of plastic. Will a project to clean up plastic from the world’s oceans make a breakthrough? Or will micro-plastics continue to accumulate up the food chain?

Meanwhile, electronics are highly dependent on lanthanides, and most of the sources are owned by one country, so your old electronics could become more valuable. Finding an efficient way to isolate individual lanthanides would be lucrative. And with more uses for graphene being discovered, more electronic goods will migrate to graphene-based technology. Will the next generation of solar panels go the same way?

Only time will tell how innovative we manage to be in 2018, but it’s looking to be a promising year, and the team at Albright IP will be here to help protect your innovations for the years to come.

 

The Unitary Patent System and How It Affects You

City

 

*FOR THE WHOLE ARTICLE PLEASE CLICK THE DOWNLOAD BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE*

 

In Brief: Unitary Patent


When the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (Agreement) eventually comes into force, a unitary patent will run alongside national patents and the classical European patent, having a unitary effect across all its signatory European Union (EU) member states.

 

Currently, 25 out of 28 EU member states are participating in the system, with the exception of Croatia, Poland and Spain. The Agreement, signed by the participating states on 19 February 2013, will enter     into force after it has been ratified by at least 13 states, of which France, Germany, and the UK must be included. As of August 1, 2017, there have been 13 state ratifications, including France. However, Germany and the UK have not yet ratified – and the UK’s participation is now unclear due to Brexit.

 

It is hoped that the Agreement can enter into force by early 2018, but the result of the UK’s EU referendum on 23 June 2016 may have a bearing on this. If Italy replaces the UK as the third essential state, implementation is likely to require more time to complete preparation of the ratification and re-organising of the Unified Patent Courts.

 

Classical European Patent & Unitary Patent Compared


FILING

 

The new unitary patent has a similar application process to the classical European patent. Indeed, the European Patent Office’s (EPO) day-to-day search, examination and granting work will remain largely the same.

 

The implementing rules of the unitary patent will be based on the rules and procedures under the European Patent Convention, including remedies such as further processing and additional fees for late payment. When indication of allowance is received, just like the existing process, both systems would require the translation of claims into the other two of the three official languages of the EPO (French, German or English).

 

VALIDATION  AND RENEWAL

 

When grant of the patent takes place under the classical European patent system, the patentee has to select the relevant contracting states of interest. Depending on national requirements of specific countries, local representatives may need to be engaged, official fees paid, and/or translations of the claims or the entire specification may have to be prepared. A renewal fee will need to be paid for each patent territory in the ‘bundle’, ensuring that the granted patent remains in force.

 

By contrast, if the new unitary patent system is chosen, individual validation is no longer required for countries that have adopted the unitary system. Thus, in theory it can be valid for up to 25 countries at once and it dispenses with the need to engage local representatives for countries that are in the unitary system.

 

Furthermore, translation requirements for the unitary patent will be much more streamlined. The long term goal is for the translation requirement to be dispensed with after the grant of the unitary patent. Only   when there is a dispute, at the request of a court or an alleged infringer, will the proprietor of a unitary patent have to provide a full human translation into the relevant language.

 

Until this long term goal is achieved, however, the following translation requirements will likely be imple- mented for a transitional period (possibly up to seven years):

  • where the patent is granted in English, the patent owner will have to provide a translation of

the patent into any official language of the European Union;

  • where the patent is granted in French or German, the patent owner will have to provide a translation of the patent into

 

In addition, one renewal fee would cover all the signatory countries. For countries that are not in the unitary system, such as Croatia, Poland or Spain, the patentee can still validate in these countries individually and pay annual renewal fees as usual.

 

OPPOSITION 

 

Currently, a nine month period is available for central post-grant opposition at the EPO. Following this peri- od, central revocation is no longer possible and local proceedings are required to deal with each patent in the bundle separately. Revocation of one of the patents in the bundle by a national court does not affect the remaining patents in the same bundle.

 

Under the unitary patent system, however, central revocation can be sought at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) even after the nine month period has elapsed, and it can lead to a unitary patent losing its rights across all corresponding states. Owners of a unitary patent can also bring infringement action at the Unified Patent Court rather than at the local court in each country.

 

When the UPC comes into force, there is a transitional period (possibly around seven years) where existing European patents in bundles can opt out of the UPC to preserve them as individual patents. Thus, patent owners can forum shop during this period. If not opted out, a classical European patent in a bundle can utilise the central renewal fee system in states that are participating states to the unitary patent, and utilise the UPC to bring an infringement action. However, the European patent will also be vulnerable to being attacked centrally at the UPC for the relevant member states.

 

For non-unitary patent states, the European patent will remain as individual patents and action has to be brought at national courts.

 

Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of the Unitary Patent


 

Clearly, it is more convenient to administer and maintain a single unitary patent than multiple national patents under the classical European patent system. As a single set of patent laws applies across all countries party to the unitary patent system, the scope is harmonised across all these countries. A single infringement action can be brought by the patentee at the UPC rather than an individual local action in each of the states where infringement is taking place. Procedures and costs are thus streamlined.

 

As validation is streamlined under the unitary system, the costs involved are thus lower than validating individually in these countries under the classical European patent system. The intention is for high quality machine translations to be used for unitary patents, avoiding costs for mandatory translation unless litiga- tion arises.

 

Renewal fees for a unitary patent are paid centrally, based on the cumulative renewal fees for the top four validation countries (currently Germany, France, the UK, and the Netherlands). Therefore, the renewal fee under the unitary patent system can be more cost effective than the classical European patent system if more than four countries are selected. Having said that, the ability to save on renewal fees by letting the patent lapse in countries that are no longer of interest would be lost under the unitary patent system.

 

Non-payment of the unitary patent renewal fee would cause lapse of right across all unitary patent states.

 

Another disadvantage of a unitary patent is its vulnerability to central attack at the UPC. If successfully revoked at the UPC, all rights are lost across all corresponding states. It is far more difficult and potentially more costly for a patent granted under the classical European patent system to be revoked in all states covered.

 

Certainly, having a bundle of separate national patent rights may be safer if litigation is likely. If so, patent owners should utilise the transitional period to opt out of the unitary system when the Agreement finally comes into force.

 

Also bear in mind that the unitary patent will only cover 25 member states, and the classical European patent system presently covers 38 member states.

 

CLICK THE DOWNLOAD BUTTON FOR:

  • Costs
  • Effect of Brexit
  • Pros and Cons of the Current European Patent System and the Unitary Patent System
[easy_media_download url="https://www.albright-ip.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MSIDE-56-UPC-White-Paper-2017.10.03-Rev-2.pdf" color="grey_light"]
 

Crime and punishment: Trademark Infringement in the grey market.

Club Authority


Whilst most incidences of trademark infringement are dealt with by the bringing of civil proceedings, it is an often-overlooked fact, that the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) prescribes for an action for trademark infringement in criminal law.

 

Criminal actions in trademark law are brought under Section 92 of the TMA 1994. However, until recently it has been unclear whether these criminal actions could be brought in respect to ‘grey market’ and ‘grey goods’. The ‘grey market’ is the trade of a commodity through distribution channels that are legal, but unintended by the original manufacturer. ‘grey goods’ products are products sold by a manufacturer or their authorized agent, outside the terms of the agreement between the reseller and the manufacturer.

 

[perfectpullquote align =”left” color=”#FF8333″ cite=””]Supreme Court, provides much needed clarification in this highly important area.[/perfectpullquote]

The recent decision delivered on 3 August 2017 in the Supreme Court, provides much needed clarification in this highly important area. The Defendant in the case of R v M; R v C; R v T [2017] UKSC 58, is alleged to have been importing and subsequently selling goods, which had not authorised by the holder of the registered trademark. The goods described in the indictment take two forms:


The first, were counterfeit goods, in that their manufacture and subsequent affixing of the brand owners Mark was not done by or with the consent of the trademark holder. This is generally understood to be caught by Section 92 TMA 1994.

[perfectpullquote align ="right" color="#FF8333" cite=""]Trademark infringement can attract a prison sentence of up to 10 years.[/perfectpullquote]

The second, the ‘grey goods’, were originally authorised for manufacture and subsequently branded by the trademark holder, but were not approved for sale.

 

The question sent under Appeal to the Supreme Court was whether the second of these two types of goods fell into the ambit of the criminal offences set out in Section 92 of the TMA 1994. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the two lower Courts stating that from a literal reading of the Act it was apparent that ‘grey goods’ fall under the scope of Section 92.

 

The case will now be handed back to the Crown Court were the defendant will be tried under criminal proceedings. Criminal sanctions associated with trademark infringement can attract a prison sentence of up to 10 years or an unlimited fine. Not an insignificant deterrent to a potential offender.

 

From this decision, it is now clear that ‘grey goods’ will now be capable of being subject to criminal trademark sanctions just like pirated, counterfeit and bootlegged goods. It is currently unclear, whether this development will open the flood gates to a spate of private prosecutions by trademark holders seeking to enforce their trademark rights using criminal sanctions.

 

Whatever the future brings, the experienced trademark team at Albright IP will be ready to offer their clients the best possible advice about how the manage and enforce their Intellectual Property rights.

 

Zombie Trademarks: Night of the living (dead) Trade Marks – a story for Halloween

ZombieIt is that time of year again, when things go bump in the night, indeed as the night draws in and it grows darker. Things are getting a little spookier here at Albright IP headquarters.

Nothing is quite as spooky as nipping down into the depths of County House, on a late evening, guided only by my trusted candlestick searching for a renewal file or perhaps just some spare stationary (OK, we have electricity, but this is meant to be a ghost story).

When, I return to my desk, I can hear the wind rustle through the trees, the building creek and the hoot of a friendly owl. Undoubtedly, the creepy surroundings have got me thinking. You see theoretically, all trademarks are immortal or at least perpetually renewable, in that as long as a trademark is renewed every 10 years, it can last into perpetuity. Indeed, the oldest UK trademark ‘Registration No. 1’ for Bass Brewery, is now 141 years old. However, in practice, trademarks often have a limited lifespan, they are born and they die.

This thought conjures an image to my head of a vast trademark graveyard, a place where trademarks, when they have been abandoned and lived out their usefulness, come to rest. Perhaps, it is the fate of good Trade Mark Attorneys, to one day (although hopefully in the far future) keep watch over this afterlife for trademarks? Nevertheless, the disconcerting thing is, trademarks unlike people (I hope!) sometimes come back.

Grave‘Zombie trademarks’, as they may be referred to, are a growing phenomenon. Since, reviving an expired trademark represents a number of advantages over starting the registration process all over again.

The most human-like advantage of the ‘Zombie trademark’ is that they can elicit feelings of nostalgia and a deep emotional connection with the consumer. In many cases these trademarks are iconic, and accordingly the brand image that they create, may have some residual reputation. This reputation or residual goodwill, means that an abandoned trademark may have considerable marketing potential, giving the holder the opportunity to save time and money which would otherwise have to be spent in creating the reputation associated with a new Mark. The adoption of a ‘Zombie trademark’ can represent less of a commercial risk for the owner, than a re-brand.

The ‘reviver’ of defunct or dead trademarks may take many guises. Sometimes, they will be the original right holder; however, more often than not, start-ups with little or no relation to the defunct brand, will attempt to obtain the associated rights, especially the ‘Zombie trademark’. For either of these profiles, the process of reviving a dead trademark can be problematic, but not insurmountable. A possible issue is that whilst a trademark may be long dead, other associated Intellectual Property rights may still be very much alive. It is important to remember that there may be residual copyright, or a valid passing off right enduring within, and surrounding the brand. The situation is further exasperated by the fact that as time goes on, a veil of uncertainty can manifest around who retains or who acquires a valid interest in an otherwise deceased brand.

‘Zombie trademarks’ represent a significant commercial advantage to those wishing to exploit the ever-continuing vintage trend, which is currently captivating consumers worldwide. However, there exist several substantial risks in trying to capitalise on this grave yard of goodwill. It is strongly recommended that anyone considering reviving a lapsed trademark or a ‘dead brand’, seek out the services of an experienced Trade Mark attorney, in order that the appropriate checks and searches can be conducted. We wouldn’t want you getting bitten by a deceased trademark which isn’t as dead as you thought!

Here at Albright IP, we have a very experienced trademark team, who can help you avoid a nasty fright, when it comes to reviving the elusive ‘Zombie trademark’. Happy Halloween…

No safe harbour: could this be the end of the ‘Golden Age’ of Pirate Bay

pirateThe Golden Age of Piracy is a common expression used to describe one or more outbursts of maritime piracy throughout the Caribbean in the seventeenth century and the first part of the eighteenth century. The general consensus is this explosion of piracy was caused by a surplus of skilled sailors, a large amount of highly valuable cargo, and a lack of law and order. These circumstances are roughly analogous to the situation with internet copyright piracy today, hence the metaphorical link drawn between the two.

Jurisdictions around the world are endeavouring to curb the prevalence of internet copyright piracy by trying the regulate the internet and the more specifically the operators of file sharing bit torrent sites which act as safe harbours for copyright infringement. If successful this would mean the end of the ‘golden age’ of internet piracy.

The most recent development involves the online sharing platform ‘The PirateBay’, which organises and indexes BitTorrent files that are uploaded by its users. Many of these files are copyrighted works such as Films, TV series and music, these files are almost exclusively uploaded without the copyright holders consent. The foundation Stichting Brein which seeks to uphold the rights of copyright holders brought an action against Ziggo BV and XS4ALL, two internet providers, seeking to make them block access to ‘The PirateBay’.

The case heard in the Netherlands Supreme Court hinged upon whether the operators of file sharing websites such as ‘The Pirate Bay’, are infringing copyright by making a ‘communication to the public’ as provided for by the InfoSoc Directive (Directive 2001/29). The question of what constitutes a communication to the public as referred to the CJEU. The CJEU expressed that in order to establish liability two distinct elements must be established namely: the act of communication and the public.

‘Act of Communication’

The CJEU noted that while ‘The PirateBay’ hadn’t actually uploaded any copyrighted works themselves, they had provided a service which made the protected works available through being uploaded by others. Further, it was emphasised that ‘The PirateBay’ was aware of the consequences of their conduct.it was further noted that without the platform (or similar platforms) provided by The Pirate Bay, the sharing of the copyrighted works would be more difficult. Therefore, the CJEU concluded that the operators of ‘The PirateBay’ went beyond merely providing physical facilities for enabling or making a communication.

‘The Public’

Previous case law has already provided that the ‘public’, does not have to be the entirety of the relevant public, it merely has to be a substantial section of the ‘public’.

In this case it was observed that ‘The PirateBay’ itself had several million users and that a substantial amount of the customers of Ziggo and XS4ALL, had used ‘The PirateBay’ to share copyrighted works. Therefore, it was concluded that the threshold for establishing ‘the public’ had been surpassed.

 Conclusion

It is unclear whether this development will mark the beginning of the end of internet piracy, but this decision represents a positive step for copyright holders, it brings the Law in the EU in line with the law in the UK, providing a clear precedent that it is possible to stop internet service providers from allowing access to websites, which serve the purpose of unauthorised sharing of copyrighted works, throughout Europe. Effectively, closing down the ports which internet piracy rely upon.

Here at Albright IP, we are both seasoned on the high seas (of copyright) and enthusiastic about helping you protect your copyrighted works against internet piracy.