SCHOOL OF LAW, POLITICS & SOCIOLOGY

SUSSEX LAW SCHOOL

Aspects of Intellectual Property

Module Handbook 2023/2024

Faculty:

Dr Phoebe Li (Convenor)
Dr Andres Guadamuz
Dr Maria Mercedes Frabboni
Module Code: 821M3

1
Introduction to the module

The module focuses on aspects of the law of copyright, trade marks, patents and designs. It aims
to introduce students to intellectual property law and its philosophical and economic
justifications, but it will also encourage in-depth analysis of particular issues in the law and policy
of intellectual property. The module will consider aspects of the international framework which
governs intellectual property, such as the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights 1994 (TRIPSs). However, emphasis will be placed on EU and UK law in order to
provide a basis for substantive discussion of the issues.
Learning outcomes
1. Understand and explain the main principles of copyright law, registered trade marks and
patent law as it applies in the UK and demonstrate understanding of the international framework
in which IP operates.
2. Undertake effective independent research on a topic using library resources.
3. Analyse, critique and evaluate the law and the policies which shape the law, paying attention
to important contemporary issues in intellectual property law.
4. Apply the knowledge and understanding gained to the solution of problems and develop
reasoned arguments on controversial aspects of the law.
Teaching
The module is taught by Dr Phoebe Li (e-mail: Phoebe.Li@sussex.ac.uk), office: Freeman F36;
Dr Andres Guadamuz (a.guadamuz@sussex.ac.uk) Office: Freeman G17;
Dr Maria Mercedes Frabboni (m.m.fraboni@sussex.ac.uk) Office: Freeman F18.

This module is taught through ten (one hour) weekly lectures and ten (two hour) seminars.
You are expected to undertake substantial self-study on this module during the term, particularly
for the seminars.

Lectures
There is in person lectures taking place at 17:00 – 17:50 pm on Mondays at CHI3-3R143 (51).
Lectures will be recorded and upload to Canvas module site. Details please see Canvas and Sussex
Direct.

Seminars
Seminars begin in Week 1. Following the University guidelines, seminars will not be recorded.
Details please see Sussex Direct and Canvas.

2
Seminar preparation
The essential reading for seminars has been selected because it will provide you with a basic
framework of knowledge, you are therefore expected to read this. You should also select from
the additional reading to develop the breadth and depth of your knowledge. The seminar
questions for each week will be released at least a week in advance of each class, and they will be
posted in Canvas.

You will be expected to contribute to seminar discussion.

Week Topic Seminars
1 Introduction to IP law (AG) Introduction (PL)
2 Trade Marks 1 (PL) Trade Marks 1 (PL)
3 Trade Marks 2 (PL) Trade Marks 2 (PL)
4 Patents 1 (PL) Patents 1 (PL)
5 Patents 2 (PL) Patents 2 (PL)
6 Reading week (no class)
7 Copyright and related rights 1 (AG) Copyright 1 (AG)
8 Copyright and related rights 2 (MMF) Copyright 2 (MMF)
9 Copyright and related rights 3 (MMF) Copyright 3 (MMF)
10 Designs (PL) Designs (PL)
11 Passing off (PL) Passing off (PL)

Assessment
The module will be assessed by means of a 5,000-word essay. You will be informed later of the
essay titles and the submission deadline.

Answering essay questions: technique

In an essay question the examiner is looking for:

• Identification of issues
• Relevance – answering the question asked: You must answer the question asked. If you
fail to do so you will not be awarded any marks, however extensive your knowledge of the area
you discuss.
• Knowledge - selection and analysis of relevant material
• Quality of argument
• Structure of the argument
• Legal writing style

You should introduce your answer with an outline of the key issues you will discuss,
demonstrating their relevance to the question.

3
You should include a conclusion, reinforcing your answer to the question. This should be a
development from the substance you have discussed in the main body of your answer.

Reading list:
In addition to the weekly reading list, we recommend the following book as the main textbook:

A. Brown et al, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, OUP, 2023 (6th edition).

Other good books include:

L. Bently et al, Intellectual Property Law, OUP, 2018 (5th edition).

T. Aplin and J. Davies, Intellectual Property Law: Text and Materials, Oxford University Press, 2017
(third edition).

Library Resources
SLS is keen to ensure that the law library collection meets the needs of a high quality law school.
To this end, the Library currently spends over £80,000 each year on law materials. This includes
subscribing to the four major electronic databases: Westlaw; LexisNexis; HeinOnline; Lawtel,
providing a wide range of law journals in electronic and paper form, subscribing to law report
series and purchasing monographs and other high level legal texts. All of these sources are vital to
enable students to gain maximum benefit from their legal studies and to develop the skills in legal
research – important for both the academic study of law and to legal practice.

In addition, SLS aims to ensure that the Library has in stock a reasonable supply of student
textbooks, purchased in accordance with university policy. For textbooks categorised as essential
reading this means that the Library will purchase roughly one copy per 10-20 students (depending
upon the size of the cohort) and smaller numbers of copies for textbooks categorised as
recommended reading. Further details regarding relevant library resources and
recommendations for textbook purchase will be provided by each module team.

Periodicals
Due to the nature of the subject matter of this module (it is a dynamic area of law) you will be
required to make extensive use of academic journals/periodicals. There is a selection of
periodicals which you will use regularly; there are many other relevant journals, many of which
may be accessed through Westlaw.

NB: There is an ever-expanding body of relevant literature available on-line through Westlaw
(access through the library home pages).

4
Additional Information on Academic Misconduct and Requirements for Progression

MISCONDUCT

Collusion

Collusion is the preparation or production of work for assessment jointly with another person or
persons unless explicitly permitted by the Markers. An act of collusion is understood to encompass
those who actively assist others or allow others to access their work prior to submission for
assessment. In addition any student is guilty of collusion if they access and copy any part of the
work of another to derive benefit irrespective of whether permission was given. Where joint
preparation is permitted by the Markers but joint production is not, the submitted work must be
produced solely by the student making the submission. Where joint production or joint preparation
and production of work for assessment is specifically permitted, this must be published in the
appropriate module documentation.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use, without acknowledgement, of the intellectual work of other people, and the
act of representing the ideas or discoveries of another as one’s own in written work submitted for
assessment. To copy sentences, phrases or even striking expressions without acknowledgement of
the source (either by inadequate citation or failure to indicate verbatim quotations), is plagiarism;
to paraphrase without acknowledgement is likewise plagiarism. Where such copying or
paraphrasing has occurred the mere mention of the source in the bibliography shall not be deemed
sufficient acknowledgement; each such instance must be referred specifically to its source.
Verbatim quotations must be either in inverted commas, or indented, and directly acknowledged.

For further info, see the latest version of the Examination and Assessment Regulations Handbook
currently accessible at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/adqe/standards/examsandassessment).
This handbook also includes important information about what happens if you fail a module
and/or have evidence of exceptional circumstances that is accepted under the university’s
exceptional circumstances claims procedures.

REFERENCING

Please note that SLS requires the use of the OSCOLA referencing system for formal submissions.
For more information about OSCOLA and our own guidance on the importance of referencing
correctly and how to do it, see the SLS Guide to Referencing which is available in the LLB course
handbook at http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lps/internal/students/undergraduates .’ The Guide is also
available on the undergraduate Study Direct site ‘Important Information for Law Students’ under
Academic Skills.

5
 OSCOLA Quick Reference Guide
Primary Sources
Do not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate
citations with a semi-colon.
Cases
Give the party names, followed by the neutral
citation, followed by the Law Reports citation (eg AC,
Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law
Reports citation followed by the court in brackets. If
the case is not reported in the Law Reports, cite the
All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008]
1 AC 884
R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ
1031, [2005] QB 410
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in
square brackets at the end of the citation. If the
judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the
page number pinpoint after the court.
Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1
WLR 2112 [42], [45]
Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3
All ER 336 [1]–[37]
R v Leeds County Court, ex p Morris [1990] QB
523 (QB) 530–31
If citing a particular judge:
Arscott v The Coal Authority [2004] EWCA Civ
892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ)
Statutes and statutory instruments
Act of Supremacy 1558
Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b)
Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment
of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166
EU legislation and cases
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European
Union [2008] OJ C115/13
Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control
of concentrations between undertakings (EC
Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5
Case C–176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR
I–7879, paras 47–48
European Court of Human Rights
Omojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10
Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124
Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20
July 2004)
Simpson v UK (1989) 64 DR 188
Secondary Sources
Books
Give the author’s name in the same form as in the
publication, except in bibliographies, where you
should give only the surname followed by the
initial(s). Give relevant information about editions,
translators and so forth before the publisher, and
give page numbers at the end of the citation, after
the brackets.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651,
Penguin 1985) 268
Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution
(1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)
K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to
Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP
1998)
Contributions to edited books
Francis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’
in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds),
Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks
(OUP 2006)
Encyclopedias
Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53
Journal articles
Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in
Public Law’ [2005] PL 440
When pinpointing, put a comma between the first
page of the article and the page pinpoint.
JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political
Constitution’ (2001) 117 LQR 42, 64
Online journals
Graham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development
of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010)
1(1) EJLT < http://ejlt.org//article/view/17 >
accessed 27 July 2010
Command papers and Law Commission reports
Department for International Development,
Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common
Future (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5
Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com
No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17
Websites and blogs
Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’
(Naked Law, 1 May 2009) <www.nakedlaw.
com/2009/05/index.html> accessed 19 November
2009
Newspaper articles
Jane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’
Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3
6
LIBRARY RESOURCES

SLS is keen to ensure that the law library collection meets the needs of a high-quality law school.
To this end, the Library currently spends a significant amount each year on law materials. This
includes subscribing to the four major electronic databases: HeinOnline; Lawtel; LexisNexis and
Westlaw, providing a wide range of law journals in electronic and paper form, subscribing to law
report series and purchasing monographs and other high level legal texts. These sources are vital
to enable students to gain maximum benefit from their legal studies and to develop the skills in
legal research – important for both the academic study of law and legal practice.

In addition, SLS aims to ensure that the Library has in stock a reasonable supply of student
textbooks, as far as is practical, purchased in accordance with university policy. For textbooks
categorised as ‘student purchase’, as this suggests, students are encouraged to purchase their own
copy and the library will not stock large numbers of these books. Further details regarding relevant
library resources and recommendations for textbook purchase will be provided by each module
team.

FEEDBACK AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT

There are numerous opportunities on this module to receive feedback on your progress and
development. The teaching team are here to help you so please take advantage of the
opportunities available.

• Seminars are a key opportunity for you to receive feedback. They provide a chance for you
to test your ideas, ask any questions that arose from your preparatory reading and check
whether you have understood the issues.
• In seminars you will receive oral feedback from your seminar tutor.
• The Study Direct Forum can be used to ask questions and get feedback about where you
need to develop your understanding further.
• Your seminar tutors and academic advisors are available in their Student Feedback and
Drop-in Sessions for further discussion about progress and your studies.
• Prior to submitting the assessed essay for this module you will receive written comments on
your essay plan, which you are welcome to discuss with your tutor in person.
• Details about formative assessment and feedback. Prior to submitting the assessed essay for
this module you will receive written comments on your essay plan, which you are welcome
to discuss with your tutor in person.
• For the assessed essay itself you will be provided with a mark as well as written comments
indicating your main strengths and weaknesses. In addition generic feedback will be
provided highlighting common areas of difficulty.

7
SLS PG Marking Criteria

Basis on which marks are awarded:

80 - 100 A mark in this range is indicative of outstanding work. Marks in this range will be awarded for work
that exhibits all the attributes of excellent work but has very substantial elements of originality and flair.
Marks in this range will indicate that the work is of a publishable academic standard.

70 – 79 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is of an excellent standard for a postgraduate level.
The work will exhibit excellent levels of knowledge and understanding comprising all the qualities of good
work stated above, with additional elements of originality and flair. The work will demonstrate a range of
critical reading that goes well beyond that provided on reading lists. Answers or essays will be fluently
written and include independent arguments that demonstrate an awareness of the nuances and
assumptions of the question or title. Essays will make excellent use of appropriate, fully referenced, detailed
examples. Marks at the upper level of this range will indicate that the work is of near publishable standard.

60-69 A mark in this range is indicative of that the work is of a good to very good standard at postgraduate
level. Work of this quality shows a good level of knowledge and understanding of relevant course material.
It will show evidence of reading a wide diversity of material and of being able to use ideas gleaned from this
reading to support and develop arguments. Essay work will exhibit good writing skills with well-organized,
accurate footnotes and/or a bibliography that follows the accepted ‘style’ of the subject. Arguments and
issues will be illustrated by reference to well documented, detailed and relevant examples. There should be
clear evidence of critical engagement with the objects, issues or topics being analysed. Any empirical work
will be clearly presented, the results should be correct and any conclusions clearly and accurately expressed.

50-59 (PASS) A mark in this range is indicative that the work is of an acceptable to satisfactory standard
at postgraduate level. Work of this type will show adequate knowledge and understanding of relevant
course material. It will focus on the essay title or question posed and show evidence that relevant basic
works of reference have been read and understood. The work will exhibit adequate essay writing and
analytical skills. It will be reasonably well presented, but the essay or answer may be weakly structured,
cover only a limited range of the relevant material, or have a limited or incomplete argument. Essay work
should exhibit satisfactory use of footnotes and/or a bibliography, and in more empirical work it should be
possible to follow the logical steps leading to the answer obtained and the conclusions reached, even if there
are flaws in the logic. Arguments and issues should be discussed and illustrated by reference to examples,
but these may not be fully documented or detailed.

30-49 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is below, but at the upper end is approaching, the
standard required for a pass mark at postgraduate level. It indicates weak work of an inadequate standard.
This will be because either the work is too short, is very poorly organized, or is poorly directed at the essay
title or question asked. It will show very limited knowledge or understanding of the relevant course material
and display weak writing and/or analytical skills. Essay work will exhibit no clear argument, may have very
weak spelling and grammar, inadequate or absent references and/or bibliography, and may contain major
factual errors. Empirical work will contain significant errors and incorrect conclusions.
0-29 A mark in this range is indicative that the work is far below the standard required for a pass mark at
postgraduate level. It indicates that the work is very weak and seriously inadequate. This will be because
either the work is far too short, is incoherent in content, or fails to address the essay title or question
asked. It will show very little evidence of knowledge or understanding of the relevant module material
and may exhibit very weak writing and/or analytical skills.

8
 READING LISTS

This is a basic list of suggested reading for each week. The list is likely to be updated at least one
week before each lecture, so you will be expected to check on Sussex Direct for the latest
authoritative version.
Seminar notes and questions will be released online. Please be aware that seminars are flexible
and depend entirely on your input. The more prepared you are, the better you will understand
the class.

1. Justifications and introduction to IP

Essential reading

• Brown, Part I Introduction. pp. 3-30.

• E. Hettinger, ‘Justifying Intellectual Property’ [1989] 18:1 Philosophy and Public Affairs 31.

Suggested reading

• Hilty et al, ‘Comment by the Max-Planck Institute on the Commission’s proposal for a
directive to amend Directive 2006/116 concerning the term of protection for copyright and
related rights’ [2009] EIPR 59
• E. Bonadio, Compulsory licensing of patents: the Bayer-Natco case [2012] EIPR 719 (don’t
worry about the detail but think about the principles at issue here)
• J. Boyle, Preface and Chapter 11 from ‘Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the
Construction of the Information Society’ (1996)
• R. Bettig, Ch. 4 ‘The (Political) Economics of Intellectual Property’ from ‘Copyrighting
Culture’ (1996)

Further reading

• Spector, An Outline of a Theory Justifying Intellectual Property Rights [1989] 8 EIPR 270
• J. Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch. V ‘Of Property’ (C.P. Macpherson (ed.)
• J. Hughes, ‘The Philosophy of Intellectual Property’, (1988) 77 Geo. L.J. 287
• Roger van den Bergh, The Role and Social Justification of Copyright: A Law and Economics
Approach, [1998] IPQ 17
• G. Dutfield & U. Suthersanen, ‘The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the
Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity’ [2004] IPQ 379
• William van Caenegem, ‘Intellectual Property Law and the Idea of Progress’ [2003] IPQ 237
• Neil McCormick, ‘On the very idea of intellectual property: an Essay according to the
9
 Institutionalist Theory of Law’ [2002] IPQ 227
• Edmund Kitch, ‘The Nature and Function of the Patent System’ (1977) 20 Journal of Law &
Economics 265
• Peter Drahos, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Aldershot, Dartmouth, 1996
• Rosemary Coombes, The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties, Duke University Press,
Durham and London, 1998
• E. Derclaye, ‘Patent law’s role in the protection of the environment – re-assessing patent
law and its justifications in the 21st century’ [2009] IIC 249
• E. Derclaye, ‘Should patent law help cool the planet? An enquiry from the point of view of
environmental law: Part 1’ [2009] EIPR 168
• E. Derclaye, ‘Should patent law help cool the planet? An enquiry from the point of view of
environmental law: Part 2’ [2009] EIPR 227
• S. Maniatis, ‘Trademark Rights - A Justification based on Property’ [2002] IPQ 123
• W. Gordon, ‘An Enquiry into the Merits of Copyright: The Challenges of Consistency,
Consent and Encouragement Theory’ (1989) 41 Stan. L. Rev. 1343
• Jennifer Davis, ‘European Trade Mark Law and the Enclosure of the Commons’ [2002] IPQ
342
• R. Deazley, ‘The Myth of Copyright at Common Law’ [2003] C.L.J. 106
• Kant, ‘On the Injustice of Counterfeiting Books’ (1785)
• T. E. Deuvorst, ‘Slimming down intellectual property with Lon Fuller’ [2009] E.I.P.R. 161
• J. Pila, ‘Pluralism, principles and proportionality in intellectual property’ (2014) O.J.L.S. 181
• C. Seville, ‘The principles of international intellectual property protection: from Paris to
Marrakesh’ (2013) WIPOJ 95

Useful links:

The UK’s IP Office:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/intellectual-property-office
World Trade Organization (WTO) IP page:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):
http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html

10
 2. Trade marks I
Introduction and absolute grounds for refusal

Legislation

• Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883)

• Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks 1891
• Madrid Protocol 1989
• TRIPS Agreement Arts 15-21
• The Trade Marks Act 1994
• EU Regulation No 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and the Council amending the
Community trade mark regulation
• Trade Marks Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/2436)

Cases

• Arsenal Football Club v Reed [2003] CMLR 481*

• Bang & Olufsen v OHIM, Case T-508/08 [2011] ECR II-6975(GC)
• Basic Trademark SA’s Trade Mark Application [2005] RPC 25
• Benetton v G-Star [2008] ETMR 104
• Betty’s Kitchen Coronation Street [2001] RPC 825
• British Sugar v James Robertson [1996] RPC 281
• Campina Melkunie BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (C-265/100) [2004] ETMR 58
• Canon Kaisha Kabushiki v. Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer [1999] RPC 117*
• Case C-104/01 Libertel (C-104/01) [2004] FSR *4
• Case C-259/04 Elizabeth Florence Emmanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd [2006] ETMR 56*
• Case C-273/00 Sieckmann [2003] ETMR*
• Case C-299/99 Philips v. Remington [2002] ETMR 955 (ECJ)
• Case C-30/15 P. Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v EUIPO (10 November 2016)
• Case C-49/02 Heidelberger Bauchemie [2004]*
• Case C-529/07 Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH [2009]
ETMR 56
• Case C-215/14 Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd, Case C-215/14 [2015]
• Chocoladefabriken Lindt v Franz Hauswilth GmbH [2009]*
• Case C-264/19 Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC [2020] ECDR 15.
• Demon Ale [2000] RPC 345
• Dualit [1999] RPC 890.
• Dyson Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks [2007] 2 CMLR 303
• Eli Lilly and Company’s Application [2004] ETMR 4*
• Elvis Presley Trade Mark [1999] RPC 567 (CA)
• Ghazilian’s Trade Mark Application [2002] RPC 628

11
• Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala
(Case C-237/19) [2020] ETMR 41
• Harrison v Teton Valley Trading Co [2004] EWCA Civ 1028
• Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S, Stokke Nederland BV, Peter Opsvik and Peter Opsvik
A/S, Case C-205/13 [2014]
• Heidelberger Bauchemie [2004] ETMR 99 (colour)
• Henkel’s Application [2005] ETMR 569 (ECJ)*
• Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 110
• Imperial Group v Philip Morris & Co [1982] FSR 72*
• John Lewis of Hungerford Ltd’s Trade Mark Application [2001] RPC 575
• Joined cases C-202/08 P and C-208/08 P American Clothing Associates SA V OHIM, OHIM v
American Associates SA [2010] ETMR 3*
• Jules Rimet Cup Ltd v Football Association Ltd [2008] ECDR 43
• Kenneth [2007] ETMR 111 (OHIM, Grand Board)
• Kraft Jacobs Suchard [2001] ETMR 54
• Lego v OHIM & Mega Brand, Case C-48/09P [2010] ECR I-8403
• Linde AG v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt [2003] ECR I-3161
• Linde AG, Winward Industries & Rado Watch Co Ltd [2005] CMLR 1073 (ECJ)*
• Linkin Park LLC’s Application [2005] ETMR 17
• Madgecourt’s Application [2000] ETMR 825
• Merz and Krell GmbH & Co v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt (C-517/99) [2002] ETMR
21; [2001] I ECR 6959
• MGM Lion Corp [2004] ETMR 480
• Nestle v Unilever [2003] ETMR 681
• Nestlé Waters France v OHIM (Bottle Shape) [2003] ECR II-5207
• Nichols’s Trade Mark Application [2005] 1 WLR 1418 (ECJ)
• OHIM v. Wm Wrigley Jr Company (C-191/01) (ECJ) [2004] RPC 18 (ECJ)*
• Philips Electronics BV v. Remington Consumer Products [1998] RPC 283; [1999] RPC 809
(CA)*
• Philips v. Remington (1999) RPC 809*
• Procter & Gamble v OHIM [2002] RPC 369 (ECJ) *
• Re Coca Cola [1986] RPC 421.
• RFU & Nike v Cotton Traders [2002] ETMR 861
• Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist (C-283/01) [2004] Ch 97*
• Sky Limited (formerly Sky Plc) v SkyKick UK Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1121
• Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1174; [2014] E.T.M.R. 3
(CA (Civ Div)) 7*
• Societe des Produits Nestle v Mars UK Ltd [2006] FSR 2 (ECJ)
• T-112/13 - Mondelez UK Holdings & Services v EUIPO - Société des produits Nestlé (Forme
d’une tablette de chocolat)
• Windsurfing Chiemsee v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber [1999] I ECR 2779*
• Woodman v French Connection [2007] RPC 1
• York Trade Mark [1994] RPC 231
12
Essential reading

• Brown, Part V Chapters 13-14, pp.521-603

• J. Nurton, ‘A New Era for EU Trade Marks’ [2016] 256 Managing Intellectual Property, 26 –
29.
• D. Fields, B.Lloyd, ‘Deep breaths: Glaxo’s two-tone colour mark ruled invalid by High
Court’ [2017] 12 JIPLIP 14–16.
• M. Lynch, ‘Product configuration marks: the shape of things to come’ [2017] JIPLIP 465–
473.
• S. Maniatis, ‘Trademark Rights – A Justification based on Property’ [2002] IPQ 123
• H. Rosler, ‘The Rationale for European trade mark protection’ [2007] E.I.P.R. 100

Suggested reading

• Burrell, R. and M. Handler, ‘Making Sense of Trade Mark Law’ [2003] IPQ 388
• C. Howell, ‘Trade marks, registered designs and the monopolisation of functional shapes: a
consideration of Lego and Dyson’ [2011] E.I.P.R. 60
• L. Donnellan, ‘Three dimensional trade marks: the Mars and Lindt cases’ [2010] E.I.P.R. 132
• P. Bicknell, ‘Societe des Produits Nestle SA v Cadbury UK Ltd: single colour marks
predominantly applied to the whole visible surface of the goods’ [2014] E.I.P.R. 200
• V.K. Ahuja, ‘Non-traditional trade marks: new dimension of trade marks law’ [2010] EIPR.
575
• Keeling, D. ‘About Kinetic Watches, Easy Banking and Nappies that Keep Your Baby Dry’
[2003] IPQ 131
• Firth, A., Gredley, E. and S. Maniatis, ‘Shapes as Trade Marks: Public Policy, Functional
Considerations and Consumer Perception’ [2001] EIPR 86
• Peter Turner-Kerr, EU Intellectual Property Law: Recent Case Developments [2004] IPQ
449
• C Schulze, Registering Colour Trade Marks in the European Union [2003] EIPR 55
• U. Suthersanen, ‘The European Court of Justice in Philips v Remington – Trade Marks and
Market Freedom’ [2003] IPQ 257
• J. Phillips, ‘Trade Mark law and the need to keep free’ [2005] IIC 389
• M. Handler, ‘The distinctive problem of European trade mark law’ [2005] E.I.P.R. 306
• Ian Kilbey, “‘Baby-Dry’: a Victory for the Ephemera of Advertising?” [2002] EIPR 493
• N. Dawson, ‘Bad faith in European trade mark law’ [2011] IPQ 229

13
 3. Trade marks II
Relative grounds for refusal and infringement

Cases

• Adam Opel AG v Autec AG [2007] ETMR 500 (ECJ)

• Adidas-Salomon AG v Fitnessworld (C-408/01) [2004] 1 CMLR 14 (ECJ)*
• Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01) [2003] RPC 717 (ECJ)
• Associated Newspapers Ltd v Express Newspapers [2003] FSR 1*
• Ate My Heart Inc v Mind Candy Ltd [2011] EWHC 2741*
• Bismag v. Amblins [1940] Ch 667)*
• Bjornekulla Fruktindustrier AB v Procordia Food AB (C-371/02) [2005] 3 CMLR 16
• BMW v Deenik (C-63/97) [1999] 1 CMLR 1099*
• British Sugar v James Robertson [1996] RPC 281
• Budejovicky Budvar NP v Anheuser –Busch Inc [2012] ETMR 2
• C-487/07 L’Oreal v Bellure [2009] ETMR 55; [2010] RPC 1
• C. A. Sheimer (M) Sdn Bhd’s Trade Mark Application [2000] RPC 484
• Cabanas Habana (Device) Trade Mark [2000] RPC 26
• Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer [1999] 1 CMLR 77 (ECJ)*
• Case C- 323/09 Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer Plc [2012] ETMR 1 (ECJ First Chamber)
• Case C- 324/09 L’Oreal SA v eBay International AG [2011] ETMR (ECJ Grand Chamber)
• Case C-323/09 Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc (C-323/09) [2012] EMLR 1
• Case C-487/07 L’Oreal v Bellure [2009] ETMR 55; [2010] RPC 1
• Case C‑654/15 Länsförsäkringar AB v Matek A/S (12 December 2016)
• Céline v Céline [2007] ETMR 1320 (ECJ)
• Colgate Palmolive v. Lucas Bols Claeryn/Klarein (1976) IIC 420
• Coty Germany GmbH v Amazon Services Europe Sarl (C-567/18) [2020] ETMR 37
• Davidoff v Gofkid [2003] ETMR 534*
• El Corte Inglés SA v OHIM C‑603/14 P (ECJ)
• General Motors Corporation v. Yplon [1999] 3 CMLR 427
• Google France v. Louis Vuitton (joined cases C-236/08 to C-238/08) [2010] RPC 569 *
• Hollywood SAS v Souza Cruz SA [2002] ETMR 64.
• Holterhoff v. Freiesleben [2002] FSR 52
• Hotel Cipriani Srl v Cipriani (Grosvenor Street) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 110
• Imperial Group v. Philip Morris [1982] FSR 72
• Intel Corp v CPM UK Ltd [2007] RPC 846 (CA); [2009] ETMR 13 (CJEU)
• Invermont Trade Mark [1997] RPC 125
• L’Oreal v Bellure [2008] ETMR 1 (CA)
• Lloyd Shuhfabrik Meyer & Co v. Klijsen Handel BV [1999] 2 CMLR 1343 (ECJ)*
• LTJ Diffusion v. Sadas Vertbaudet (C-291/00) [2003] ETMR 83
• Magic Ball TM [2000] RPC 439
• Marca Mode v Adidas [2000] ETMR 723 (ECJ)*
14
 • Miss World Ltd v Channel Four Television Corp [2007] FSR 754
• O2 v Hutchison 3G [2007] RPC 407 (CA); [2008] 3 CMLR 14 (ECJ)*
• Och-Ziff Management Europe Ltd v Och Capital LLP [2010] EWHC 2599 (Ch) Examples of
the application of this provision
• Oscar Trade Mark [1980] FSR 429*
• Pebble Beach Company v Lombard Brands Limited [2003] ETMR 21 (Outer House)
• Pfizer v. Eurofood Link (UK) [2000] ETMR 187
• Premier Brands UK v. Typhoon Europe [2000] FSR 767
• R v Johnstone [2003] FSR 42 (HL).
• R.F.U & Nike v Cotton Traders [2002] ETMR 861
• Re Laboratoire Goemar SA’s TM [2004] ETMR 47 (ECJ); [2005] ETMR 114 (CA).
• Reckitt Benckiser [2006] ETMR 620 (CFI)*
• Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] RPC 40
• Sabel v. Puma [1997] I ECR 6191; [1998] CMLR 445 (ECJ)*
• Scandecor Developments AB v. Scandecor Marketing AB [2002] FSR 122 (HL)
• Specsavers v Asda Stores [2010] EWCA 2035 (CH), [2011] FSR (1) 1*
• Thomson Holidays v Norweigan Cruise Line [2002] EWCA Civ 1828
• Trebor v. Football Association [1997] FSR 211
• Tresplain Investments Ltd v OHIM (C-76/11) [2012] ETMR 22
• Whirlpool Corporation v Kenwood [2009] EWCA Civ 753
• Wild Child TM [1998] RPC 455

Essential reading

• Brown, Chapter 15, pp. 604-652.

• H Norman ‘Time to Blow the Whistle on Trade Mark Use’ [2004] IPQ 1
• N. Dawson, ‘Non-Trade Mark Use’ [2012] IPQ 204
• I. Simon, ‘Dilution by blurring - a conceptual roadmap’ [2010] I.P.Q. 44
• Carty, H. ‘Registered Trade Marks and Permissible Comparative Advertising’ [2002] EIPR 294
• Bray, O, ‘Case Comment: O2 Holdings v Hutchison 3G Ltd: ECJ Ruling adds to Confusion’
[2008] Ent LR 182

Suggested reading

• Blythe, ‘Confusion online: does the test for trade mark confusion on the internet differ
from that applied to infringement in other spheres?’ [2014] EIPR 563.
• Intellectual Property Office, ‘Cluttering and Non-Use of Trade Marks in Europe’, 24 August
2015.
• Palm J, ‘Canon, Waterford…How the Issue of Similarity of Goods should be Determined in
the Field of Trade Mark Law’ [2007] EIPR 475

15
 • Griffith, ‘The Trade Mark Monopoly: An Analysis of the Core Zone of Protection under
Article 5(1)(a)’ [2007] IPQ 312
• Morcom, ‘Trade marks and the internet: where are we now?’ [2012] EIPR 40
• M Shúilleabhaín, ‘Common Law Protection of Trade Marks – the Continuing Relevance of
Passing Off’ (2003) 34 IIC 722
• Brown, ‘Advertising and the public interest: the protection of trade symbols’ (1948) 57 Yale
Law Journal 1165
• F. Schechter, ‘The Rational Basis of Trade Mark Protection’, (1927) 40 Harvard Law Review
813
• Norman, H. ‘Davidoff v Gofkid: Dealing with the Logical Lapse or Creating European
Disharmony?’ [2003] IPQ 342.
• Davis, J. ‘To Protect or Serve? European Trade Mark Law and the Decline of the Public
Interest’ [2003] EIPR 180
• Simon, ‘Dilution in the US, Europe and beyond, Part 1: International obligations and basic
definitions (2006) 1(6) JIPLP 406-412
• Simon, ‘Dilution in the US, Europe and beyond, Part 2: Testing for blurring’ (2006) 1(10)
JIPLP 649-59
• N. Dawson, Famous and Well-Known Trade Marks – Usurping a Corner of the Giant’s Robe
[1998] IPQ 350.

Further reading

• M. Richardson, ‘Copyright in Trade Marks? On Understanding Trade Mark Dilution’ [2000]

IPQ 66
• S. Casparie-Kerdel, Dilution Disguised: Has the Concept of Trade Mark Dilution made its Way
in the Laws of Europe? [2001] EIPR 185
• Mohammad Amin Naser, ‘Recent developments of dilution in the US and UK’ [2010] E.I.P.R.
332
• Horton, ‘The implications of L’Oreal v Bellure – a retrospective and a looking forward: the
essential functions of a trade mark and when is an advantage unfair?’ [2011] EIPR 550
• G. Psaraoudakis, ‘In search of the trade mark functions: keyword advertising in European
law’ [2012] EIPR 33
• V. Liakatou and S. Maniatis, ‘Red soles, gas bottles and ethereal market places: competition,
context and trade mark law’ [2012] EIPR 1
• Yelnik, ‘Commercial value of trade marks: do current laws provide brands sufficient
protection from infringement?’ [2010] E.I.P.R. 203
• R. Burrell and D. Ganjee, ‘Trade marks and freedom of expression - a call for caution’ [2010]
IIC 544

16
 4. Patents I
Introduction, excluded subject matter, non-patentable inventions

Legislation

• Patents Act 1977

• Paris Convention 1883
• Patent Co-operation Treaty 1970
• Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS) 1994
• European Patent with Unitary Effect (unitary patent)
• Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17
December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of the of
unitary patent protection OJ L361/1 31.12.2012; Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced
cooperation in the area of the creation of the of unitary patent protection with regard to
the applicable translation arrangements OJ L361/89 31.12.2012
• Supplementary Protection Certificates
• Regulation 1768/2 (1992) and 1610/96 (1996)
• Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions 98/44 of 6th July 1998 –
implemented Patents Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/2037)
• Draft Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions 2002 O.J. C 151

Cases

• Actavis Group v ICOS Corp [2019] UKSC 15

• Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors Rev 1 [2007] RPC 7*
• Broselow/measuring tape [1998] EPOR 266
• Cappellini v Comptroller of Patents [2007] EWHC 476
• CFPH LLC’s Patent Applications [2005] EWHC 1589
• Crawford v Jones [2005] EWHC 2417 (Pat)
• Fujitsu Ltd’s Application [1997] RPC 608
• Gemstar –TV Guide International v Virgin Media [2009] EWHC 3068 (HC)
• Genentech Inc’s Patent [1989] RPC 147 (CA)
• Halliburton Energy Services Inc's Patent Applications, Re [2011] EWHC 2508*
• Hitachi/Auction Method, T258/03 [2004] OJ EPO 575
• Howard Florey/Relaxin [1995] EPOR 541; (1996) 27 IIC 704
• HTC Europe v Apple [2013] EWCA Civ 451
• I T S Rubber Ltd's Application, [1979] RPC 318
• IBM/Document Abstracting and Retrieval [1990] EPOR 98
• James Shanley, O/422/02 (2002)
• Kirin- Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel [2005] RPC 9 (HL)
• Koninklijke Philips Electronics/Picture Retrieval system [2000] EJEPO 525

17
 • Lantana Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2014] EWCA Civ
1463
• Lux Traffic Controls Ltd v Pike Signals Ltd [1993] RPC 107
• Merrill Lynch [1989] RPC 561
• Microsoft/Data Transfer (Clipboard Formats) T0424/03 (23 Feb.2006)
• Raytheon Co’s Application [1993] RPC 427*
• Re Gale’s Patent Application [1991] RPC 305 (CA)
• Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd [2020] UKSC 27
• Shopalotto.com Ltd’s Application [2006] RPC 7*
• Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2008] EWCA Civ 1066 *
• Tate & Lyle Technology v Roquette Freres [2010] FSR 1*
• Vicom System Inc’s Patent Application [1987] 2 EPOR 74
• Wang Laboratories [1991] RPC 463 *

Essential reading

• Brown, Chapters 10-11, pp.368-403; 404-479.

• Macdonald, “Exploring the hidden costs of patents”, Global intellectual property rights,
Drahos & Mayne (eds), 2002, pp13-39.
• Kaisi, ‘Finally a single European right for the EU? An analysis of the substantive provisions
of the European patent with unitary effect’, [2014] EIPR 170
• T. Aplin, ‘Patenting Computer Programs: a glimmer of convergence’ (2008) E.I.P.R. 379
• J. Griem, ‘Against a sui-generis system of intellectual property for computer software’,22
Hofstra Law Review 145.
A. Guadamuz, ‘The Software Patent Debate’ 1(3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law &
Practice 196-206 (2006).

Suggested reading

• P Li ‘Intellectual Property for Humanity: A Manifesto’, in Daniel Gervais (ed.) The Future of
Intellectual Property, ATRIP Research Handbook in Intellectual Property, (Edward Elgar
2021) 9-36
• PH Lim and P Li, ‘Patentability of biofabricated human organs: ‘products of nature’ or
‘products derived from nature’ revisited’, in N Hawkins (ed) Patenting Biotechnological
Innovation: Eligibility, Ethics and Public Interest (Edward Elgar, 2021)
• H. Dunlop, ‘What now for the Unified Patents Court following the Brexit referendum?’
(2016) 38 EIPR 595
• D. Booton, ‘The Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions’ (2007) IPQ 92
• C. De Mauny, ‘Court of Appeal clarifies patenting of computer programs (case comment)’
(2009) E.I.P.R. 147
• D. Wilson and C. Sharp, ‘Patents: patentability of computer programs (case comment)
(2009) E.I.P.R. N17
• Case comment ‘EPO: patents - patentability of computer-implemented inventions’ [2010]

18
 E.I.P.R. N83
• ‘Patenting computer-related inventions in the US and in Europe: the need for domestic and
international legal harmony’ [2011] E.I.P.R. 103
• J. Pila, ‘Software patents, separation of powers and failed syllogisms: a cornucopia from the
Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office’ [2011] CLJ 203

19
Patents IA: Excluded subject matter

Cases

• Bristol-Myers Squibb v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [1999] RPC 253*

• Broccoli (G2/07) /Tomatoes (G 1/08) [2011] EPOR 27 (EBA)
• Case C-34/10 Oliver Brustle v Greenpeace [2011]*
• Diagnostic methods G 01/04 (2006) OJ EPO 334 (EBA)
• General Hospital Corp/Hair Removal method, T383/03 (2005) OJ EPO 159
• Harvard / Onco-Mouse [1990] EPOR 501*
• Havard/Transgenic Animals [2006] OJ EPO 15*
• Howard Florey/Relaxin [1995] EPOR 541*
• ICI/Cleaning plaque [1991] EPOR 157
• International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents [2013] EWHC 807
(Ch.)
• International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents Case C-364/13 (AGO)
• Medi-Physics/Treatment by surgery, T992/03 (2007) OJ EPO 557
• Novartis /Transgenic plant [2000] EPOR 303*
• Plant Bioscience/Broccoli [2007] OJ EPO 644
• Plant Genetic Systems [1995] EPOR 357*
• Shell/Blood flow T182/90 [1994] EPOR 320*
• State of Israel/Tomatoes [2008] EPOR 26
• SYNGENTA/Seedless watermelon (T1729/06) [2015] EPOR 2
• The Netherlands v European Parliament and Commission [2001] 3 CMLR 1173
• WARF/Stem cells [2007] OJ EPO 313 (TBA)
• WARF/Stem cells [2008] EBA (G-002/06)
• Wellcome/Pigs I [1989] EPOR 1

Essential reading

• Brown, Chapter 11, pp.432-479.

• P. Drahos “Biotechnology Patents, Markets and Morality” [1999] EIPR 441
• M. Llewelyn, “The Patentability of Biological Material: Continuing Contradiction and
Confusion” [2000] EIPR 191
• M. Rowlandson, ‘WARF/Stem cells (G2/06): the ordre public and morality exception and its
impact on the patentability of human embryonic stem cells’ [2010] 67-76
• E. Bonadio, ‘Biotech patents and morality after Brustle’ [2012] 34 EIPR 433
• S. Harmon, G. Laurie and A.Courtney, ‘Dignity, plurality and patentability: the unfinished
story of Brustle and Greenpeace’ [2013] E.L. Rev. 92
• C. Davies, ‘A scandalous affair: the disparity in the application of morality to trade marks,
patents and copyright’ [2012] EIPR 4
• R.J. Aerts, ‘The unitary patent and the Biotechnology Directive: is uniform protection of
biotechnological inventions ensured?’ [2014] EIPR 584
20
Further reading

• L. Bently and B. Sherman, ‘The Ethics of Patenting: Towards a Transgenic Patent System’
(1995) 3 Medical LR 275
• G. Laurie “Patenting Stem Cells of Human Origin” [2004] EIPR 59
• Gowers Review- biotechnology and genetic patents
• ‘Morally regulating innovation: what is commercial exploitation?’ IPQ 2008, 2, 193-212
• ‘The rules of re-engagement: the expression of moral values in European patent
proceedings, past and future’ E.L. Rev 2006 31(5) 642-666
• ‘The WARF/Stem cells case before the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal’ (case comment) EIPR
2008, 30(12), 535-537
• ‘The Human embryo and patent law- a major challenge ahead?’ E.I.P.R. 2006, 28(11), 569-
575
• Warren-Jones ,‘Finding a ‘common morality codex’ for biotech- a question of substance’
• ‘Patenting the Animal Kingdom? From cross-breeding to genetic make-up and biomedical
research’, IIC 2008, 39(2), 139-177
• ‘Technical Board of Appeal in the Onco-mouse case (case comment)’, E.I.P.R. 2006, 28(1),
57-60
• Odell-West, ‘The absence of informed consent to commercial exploitation for inventions
developed from human biological material: a bar to patentability?’ [2009] I.P.Q. 373
• Brabin, ‘Intellectual property law in the realm of biology - striking the right balance’ [2014]
EIPR 687
• Godt, ‘Experts and politics in patent policy: the final report of the Expert Group on the
Development and Implications of Patent Law in the Field of Biotechnology and Genetic
Engineering of the European Commission, 17 May 2016’ (2016) 47 IIC 960
• Derclaye, ‘Should patent law help cool the planet? An enquiry from the point of view of
environmental law: Part 1’ [2009] EIPR 168
• Derclaye, ‘Should patent law help cool the planet? An enquiry from the point of view of
environmental law: Part 2’ [2009] EIPR 227
• S. Bostyn, ‘Resolving the conundrum of the patentability of plants produced by an
essentially biological process: squaring the circle’ [2013] EIPR 383

21
 5. Patents II
Ownership and defences

Cases

• Actavis UK v Novartis AG [2010] EWCA Civ 82; [2010] FSR 18

• Actavis v Merck [2008] EWCA Civ 444
• American Home Products Corp v Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2001] RPC 159
• Apimed Medical Honey Ltd v Brightwake Ltd [2011] RPC 16
• Asahi Kasei Kogyo KK’s Application [1991] RPC 485
• Auchincloss v Agricultural and Veterinary Supplies [1999] RPC 397*
• Availability to the Public [1993] EPOR 241 (EBA)
• Bayer/Plant growth regulating agent [1990] EPOR 257 (EBA)
• Bayer v Richter (Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegyészeti Gyár Nyrt. and Exeltis
Magyarország Gyógyszerkereskedelmi Kft (Case C-688/17) (ECJ, 12 September 2019,
unreported))
• Biogen v Medeva [1997] RPC 1 (HL)
• Bristol- Myers’ Application [1975] RPC 127*
• Bristol-Myers Squibb v Baker Norton Pharmaceuticals Inc [2002] RPC 1 (CA)*
• British Steel’s Patent [1992] RPC 117*
• Catnic Components Ltd v Hill [1982] RPC 183 (HL)*
• Conor Medsystems v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals [2008] UKHL 49; [2008] RPC 28
• David J Instance Ltd v Denny Bros Printing Ltd [2002] RPC 321
• Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co Ltd [2009] EWCA 1362; [2010] RPC 9
• Dyson Appliances Ltd v Hoover Ltd [2002] RPC 465 (CA)*
• Eisai [1985] OJ EPO 64
• Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2011] UKSC 51
• Fomento Industrial SA v Mentmore Manufacturing Co Ltd [1956] RPC 87 (CA)
• GEC Avionic’s Patent [1992] RPC 107
• Genentech Inc’s Patent [1989] RPC 147 (CA)*
• General Tire & Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457 (CA)*
• Generics (UK) Ltd v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] UKHL 12; [2009] RPC 13
• Greater Glasgow Health Board [1996] RPC 207*
• H. Lundbeck v Norpharma SpA [2011] EWHC 907 (Pat)
• Haberman v Jackal International Ltd [1999] FSR 683*
• IDA Ltd v University of Southampton [2006] EWCA Civ 145
• IG Farbenindustrie (1930) 47 RPC 289
• Improver Corporation v Remington Consumer Products [1990] FSR 181*
• Inhale Therapeutic Systems Inc v Quadraint Healthcare plc [2002] RPC 21*
• Ipcom GmbH v Vodafone Group [2021] EWCA Civ 205
• Kelly & Anor v GE Healthcare Ltd [2009] RPC 12
• Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2004] UKHL 46*

22
 • Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst [2005] RPC 9*
• Lux Traffic Controls Ltd v. Pike Signals Ltd [1993] RPC 107
• Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton & Co Lyd [1996] RPC 76
• Mircom International Content Management & Consulting (MICM) Ltd v Telenet BVBA
[2022] ECDR 1
• Mobil/Friction reducing additive [1990] EPOR 73
• Monsanto v Stauffer Chemical Co [1985] RPC 515*
• Nichia Corporation v Argos [2007] EWCA Civ 741
• Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588 (CA)*
• Prout v. British Gas plc [1992] FSR 478
• Re Harris’s Patent [1985] RPC 19
• Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd
[2007] UKHL 42 (HL)*
• Rockwater v Technip [2004] RPC 46
• Rovi Guides, Inc. v Virgin Media Limited & Ors. [2015] EWCA Civ 781
• Sabaf SpA v Meneghetti SpA [2004] UKHL 45
• Shanks v Unilever [2010] EWCA Civ 1283; EWHC 1647 (Pat); [2017] EWCA Civ 2*
• Staeng’s Patents [1996] RPC 183*
• Synthon v SmithKline Beecham [2006] RPC 10*
• Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2021] EWCA Civ 1374
• Van der Lely NV v Bamfords Ltd [1963] RPC 61 (HL)
• Williams v Nye (1890) 7 RPC 62 (CA)
• Windsurfing International Inc v. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd [1985] RPC 59 (CA)*
• Wobben Properties GmbH v Siemens Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 5
• Wyeth’s Application [1985] RPC 545

Essential reading

• Brown, Chapter 12, pp. 480-520.

• A. Monotti, ‘Divergent Approaches in Defining the Appropriate Level of Inventiveness in
Patent Law’ In Bently, L, D'Agostino, G, and Ng, C (eds), The Common Law of Intellectual
Property: Essays in Honour of Prof David Vaver (Hart, UK: 2010), Chapter 8, pp 178-198.
• P. Chandler “Employees’ Inventions: Inventorship and Ownership” [1997] EIPR 262
• C. Howell, ‘Extra compensation for inventive employees: is our system equitable, unbiased
and motivating?’ [2011] IPQ 371

Further reading

• Lim PH and Li PH ‘Artificial intelligence and inventorship: patently much ado in the
computer program’ (2022) 17(4) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 376-386
• P. England, and S. Parker, ‘Obviousness in the new European order’ (2012) 7:11 805-815.

23
• P.A. Dubois, and S. Yavorsky, ‘Recent patent law developments: A new test for
obviousness and a statement on the principles for determining industrial applicability’
(2009) 23 IAM-Intellectual Asset Management 188.

24
 6. Reading week: no class
7. Copyright and Related Rights I.
Introduction, protected works and originality

Legislation

• Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

• TRIPS Agreement 1995 Arts 9-21.
• The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886.

Cases

• Case C-145/10 Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH*

• Case C-393/09 BSA v Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic *
• Case C-403/08 & 429/08 Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure [2012] 1 CMLR
29
• Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECDR 16*
• Case C-607/11 ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TVCatchup
• Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444
• Express Newspapers plc v Liverpool Daily Post & Echo plc [1985] FSR 306
• Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance [1982] RPC 69
• Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd [2012] 2 CMLR 24 [39]*
• Francis Day and Hunter v 20th Century Fox [1940] AC 112
• Hensher v Restawile [1976] A.C. 64
• Interlego A.G. v Tyco Industries Inc [1989] 1 AC 217
• Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 W.L.R. 273
• Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch)*
• Navitaire Inc v Easyjet Airline Company [2004] EWHC 1725; [2005] ECDR 17, 79)
• Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2011] EWCA Civ 890
• Newspaper Licensing Agency v. Marks and Spencer plc [2003] 1 AC 551 (HL)
• Norowzian v Arks (No 2) [2000] F.S.R. 363 (C.A.) *
• Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC 14 *
• Sandman v Panasonic [1998] FSR 651
• Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EMLR 29 (CA)
• Taylor v Maguire [2013] EWHC 3804 (IPEC)*
• Technomed Ltd & Anor v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch)
• University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601 *
• Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539*

Essential reading

Brown, pp 31-94.
25
 • Guadamuz, ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright? Comparative Analysis of Originality
in Artificial Intelligence Generated Works’ [2017] I.P.Q. 169.
• P. Kamina, ‘Authorship of Films and Implementation of the Term Directive’ [1994] EIPR 319
• E. Rosati, ‘Originality in US and UK copyright experiences as a springboard for an EU-wide
reform debate’ [2010] IIC 524
• R. Deazley, ‘The Myth of Copyright at Common Law’ [2003] Cambridge Law Journal 106-
133.
• Estelle Derclaye, ‘Debunking some of UK copyright law's longstanding myths and
misunderstandings’, [2013] I.P.Q., pp. 1 – 17.

Suggested reading

• K. Garnett, ‘Copyright in Photographs’ [2001] E.I.P.R. 229

• R. Deazley, ‘Photographing Paintings in the Public Domain: A Response to Garnett’ [2001]
E.I.P.R. 179
• R. Deazley, ‘The Myth of Copyright at Common Law’ [2003] Cambridge Law Journal 106-
133.
• Rahmatian, ‘Copyright and Commodification’, [2005] EIPR 371.
• J. Ginsuburg, ‘”Une chose publique?” The author’s domain and the public domain in early
British, French and US copyright law’ [2006] 16 Cambridge Law Journal 636.
• Chen Lim Saw, ‘Protecting the Sound of Silence in 4’33’’- A Timely Revisit of Basic Principles
in Copyright Law’ [2005] E.I.P.R. 467
• de Mauny, ‘Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth: Star Wars Episode VIII - The Sculpture Wars’ [2010]
E.I.P.R. 251
• Barron, ‘The legal property of film’ (2004) 67 MLR 177
• Rahmatian, ‘Music and creativity as perceived by copyright law’ [2005] IPQ 267
• N. Gravells, ‘Authorship and originality: the persistent influence of Walter v Lane’ [2007]
IPQ 267
• Handig, ‘Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening C-5/08: is the term ‘work’
of the CDPA 1988 in line with the European Directives’? [2010] E.I.P.R. 53
• C.Handig, ‘The copyright term ‘work’ – European harmonisation at an unknown level’ [2009]
IIC 665
• Waisman, ‘Revisiting originality’ [2009] EIPR 370

26
 8. Copyright and Related Rights II.
Authorship, duration and economic rights

Cases

• 20th Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin [2010] FSR 21 [113]-[125]

• A & M Records v Video Collection [1995] EMLR 25
• Baigent v Random House [2007] F.S.R. 24
• Bamgboye v. Reed [2004] EMLR 5
• Bauman v Fussell [1978] RPC 485 C.A
• Brigid Foley v Ellot [1982] RPC 43*
• Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition Ltd [2000] RPC 95
• Cartier International AG & Ors v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors [2016] EWCA Civ 658
• Case C-160/15 GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV and Others [2017] 1 CMLR
30 *
• Case C-306/05 SGAE v Rafael Hoteles SA [2007] ECDR 2 *
• Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box [2014] EUECJ C-355/12
• Case C-403/08 & 429/08 FA Premier League v QC Leisure [2012] 1 CMLR 29
• Case C-403/08 & C-429/08 FA Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2012] 1 CMLR 29
• Case C-484/14 McFadden v Sony Music *
• Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECDR 16 *
• Case C-466/12 Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB [2014] 3 CMLR 4
• Case C‑527/15 Stichting Brein v Wullems [2017] 3 CMLR 30
• Case C‑610/15 Stichting Brein v Ziggo
• CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Computer Electronics plc [1988] AC 1013*
• Corelli v Gray [1913] TLR 570
• Designers Guild Limited v Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited [2001] FSR 1138 (HL)
• Donoghue v Allied Newspapers Ltd [1938] Ch 106*
• Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v BSB Ltd [2012] EWHC 268 (Ch)
• England And Wales Cricket Board Ltd & Anor v Tixdaq Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 575
• Fisher v Brooker [2009] FSR 25 (HL)*
• Francis Day & Hunter v Bron [1963] Ch 587*
• Hadley v Kemp [1999] EMLR 559
• Interlego A.G. v Tyco Industries Inc [1989] 1 AC 217*
• IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd [2005] FSR 20
• King Features Syndicate Inc v Kleeman (O & M) [1941] AC 417
• Krisarts SA v. Briarfine [1977] FSR 557
• Navitaire Inc v Easyjet Airline Company [2004] EWHC 1725; [2005] ECDR 17
• Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited v. Marks and Spencer plc [2001] UKHL 38
• Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater Holding BV [2011] EWCA Civ 890*
• Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14
27
 • Norowzian v. Arks (No.2) [2000] F.S.R. 363 (C.A.)
• Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] RPC 379*
• Polydor v Brown [2005] EWHC 3191 (Ch)
• PRS v Harlequin Records [1979] FSR 233.
• Ray v Classic FM plc [1998] FSR 622
• Stephenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd v MacDonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10
• Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas [2012] EWPCC 1*
• Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch)

Essential reading

• Brown, pp. 95-112; pp. 115-161.

• K. Garnett and A. Abbott, ‘Who is the Author of a Photograph?’ [1998] EIPR 204
• Guadamuz. ‘Comparative Analysis of National Approaches on Voluntary Copyright
Relinquishment’ [2013] World Intellectual Property Organization CDIP/13/INF/6,
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=272263.
• P. Johnson (2008). "Dedicating Copyright to the Public Domain" [2008] 71:4 Modern Law
Review.

Suggested reading

• S. Dusollier S . “Scoping Study on Copyright and Related Rights and the Public
Domain”[2010] World Intellectual Property Organization, CDIP/4/3/REV./STUDY/INF/1,
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/cdip_4/cdip_4_3_rev_study_inf_1.pdf.
• L. Zemer, ‘Contribution and Collaboration in Joint Authorship: Too Many Misconceptions’
[2006 JIPLP 383
• L. Mcdonagh, ‘Rearranging the roles of the performer and the composer in the music
industry – the potential significance of Fisher v Brooker’, [2012] IPQ 1, pp. 64-76.
• S O’Connor, ‘To whom would the courts give a whole lotta love? English copyright law and
the blues: a case study of the "Whole Lotta Love" authorship dispute’, (2015) EIPR 2015,
37(6), 344-354.
• Ronan Deazley, ‘Copyright in the House of Lords: Recent Cases, Judicial Reasoning and
Academic Writing’ [2004] IPQ 121 (discussing Designers Guild and others)
• M. Wyburn, ‘Giving credit where it is due: the Da Vinci Code litigation: Part 1’ [2007] Ent.
L.R 96
• M. Wyburn, ‘Giving credit where it is due: the Da Vinci Code litigation: Part 2 [2007] Ent.
L.R. 131
• Strowel (ed), Peer-to Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law (2009)
• R. Massey and N. Tian, ‘Caught coming through the rye - a purely literary character
protected by US copyright?’ [2010] Ent. L.R. 6

28
 9. Copyright and Related Rights III.
Exceptions and moral rights

Cases

• Ashdown v Telegraph Group [2001] EMLR 363 (CA)*

• Associated Newspapers Group plc v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] RPC 515
• Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109 (HL)
• British Academy of Songwriters, Composers And Authors & Ors, R (On the Application Of)
v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation And Skills [2015] EWHC 1723.*
• Case C-128/11 Usedsoft GmbH v Oracle International Inc [2012] ECDR 19
• Case C-201/13 Johan Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others*
• Case C‑166/15 Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs [2017] IIC 469 *
• Clark v Associated Newspapers [1998] 1 All ER 959*
• Confetti Records v Warner Music Inc [2003] EWHC 1274
• Emma Delves-Broughton v House of Harlot Ltd [2012] EWPCC 29*
• Godot (1993) 155 RIDA 225
• HRH The Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 3) [2008] Ch 57 (CA)*
• Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84 (CA)
• Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2001] Ch 143 (CA)*
• IPC Media Ltd v News Group Newspapers [2005] FSR 35
• Morrison v Lightbond [1993] EMLR 144
• Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2011] EWCA Civ 890*
• Pasterfield v Denham [1999] FSR 168
• Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK TV Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 605 (CA)*
• Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EMLR 29 (CA)*
• Sillitoe v McGraw-Hill Book Co (UK) Ltd [1983] FSR 545.
• Snow v Eaton Centre (1982) 70 CPR 105 (Canada)*
• Tidy v Trustees of the British Museum [1996] EIPR D-81
• Time Warner Entertainments Co v Channel 4 [1994] EMLR 1 (CA)
• Turner Entertainment Co v Huston (1995) 164 RIDA 256
• Williamson Music v Pearson [1987] FSR 97

Essential Reading

• Brown, pp.164-202; pp.204-215.

• D. Mendis and M. Kretschmer, ‘The Treatment of Parodies under Copyright Law in Seven
Jurisdictions - A Comparative Review of the Underlying Principles’ [2013],
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-parody-report2-150313.pdf

29
 • J. Griffiths, ‘Copyright Law After Ashdown’, [2002] IPQ 240
• J. Griffiths, ‘Pre-empting conflict – a re-examination of the public interest defence in UK
copyright law’, (2014) Legal Studies, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp. 76–102.
• E Rosati, 'Just a laughing matter? Why the decision in Deckmyn is broader than parody'
(2015) 52 Common Market Law Review, Issue 2, pp. 511–529.
• K. Koelman, ‘Fixing the Three-step Test’ [2006] E.I.P.R. 407.
• I. Stamatoudi, Moral Rights of Authors in England: the Missing Emphasis on the Role of
Creators [1997] 4 IPQ 478.

Suggested reading

• Sir H. Laddie, ‘Copyright: Over-Strength, Over-Regulated, Over-Rated?’ [1996] E.I.P.R. 253

• Sims, ‘Strangling their creation: the courts’ treatment of fair dealing in copyright law since
1911’ [2010] I.P.Q. 192
• H. Breakey, ‘User's rights and the public domain’ [2010] I.P.Q. 312
• R. Burrell, ‘Defending the public interest’ [2000] E.I.P.R. 394
• Burrell, ‘Reining in Copyright Law: Is Fair Use the Answer?’ [2001] IPQ 361
• E. Adeney, ‘The moral right of integrity: the past and future of ‘honour’’ [2005] I.P.Q. 111
• S. Teilman, Framing the Law: The Right of Integrity in Britain [2005] EIPR 19
• M Iljadica, ‘Graffiti and the moral right of integrity’, [2015] IPQ 3, pp. 266-288.
• S. Jacques, ‘Mash-ups and mixes: what impact have the recent copyright reforms had on
the legality of sampling?’, (2016) Entertainment Law Review, 2016, 27(1), pp. 3-10.
• P. Geller, ‘The celestial jam session: creative sharing online caught in conflicts of copyright
laws’, (2015) EIPR, 37(8), pp. 490-497.
• Guadamuz and D. Cabell, ‘Data Mining in UK Higher Education Institutions: Law and Policy’
[2014] 4:1 Queen Mary Intellectual Property Review 3.
• J. Ginsburg, ‘Moral rights in the common law system’ [1990] Ent LR 121.

30
 10. Designs

Cases
• AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1972] RPC 103
• Crocs Inc v Holey Soles Holdings Ltd [2010] ECDR 11*
• Dyson v Vax Ltd [2010] ECDR 18 (HC); [2012] FSR 4 (CA)*
• PMS International Limited v Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12*
• Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936; [2008] FSR 8*
• Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] ECDR 2*
• British Leyland Motor Corp Ltd. v. Armstrong Patents Co. Ltd [1986] 2 WLR 400
• Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2005] RPC19*
• Lambretta Clothing Co. Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd [2005] RPC 6*
• Mackie Designs v Behringer Specialised Studio Equipment (UK) Ltd. [1999] RPC 717
• Neptune (Europe) Limited v Devol Kitchens Limited [2017] EWHC 2172 (Pat)
• Ocular Sciences Ltd v Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289*
• R v Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal ex parte Ford Motor Co. [1995] 1 WLR 18
• Case C-683/17 – Cofemel
• Case C-833/18 – Brompton
• Case C-123/20 - Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design Holding GmbH
• WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) [2022] EWHC 2084 (IPEC)

Essential reading

• Brown, Chapters 8-9, pp.267-365.

• U Suthersanen and M D Mimler, ‘An Autonomous EU Functionality Doctrine for Shape
Exclusions’ (2020) 69 (6) GRUR International, pp. 567–577.
• Kingsbury, ‘International harmonisation of designs law: the case for diversity’ E.I.P.R.
(2010) 32(8), 382-395
• J. Darcy, ‘Under-regulated or under-enforced: intellectual property, the fashion industry
and fake goods’, E.I.P.R. (2013), 35(2), 82-92

Suggested reading

• M M Frabboni, ‘Fashion designs and brands: The role of the informed user and the
average consumer’ (2020) 23 Journal of World Intellectual Property, pp. 815– 831.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12176
• Jane Cornwell, ‘Under-referred, under-reasoned, under-resourced? Re-examining EU
design law before the Court of Justice and General Court’ [2016] Intellectual Property
Quarterly 318 – 351.

31
• G. Scanlan and S. Gale, ‘Industrial design and the Design Directive: continuing and future
problems in design rights?’ Journal of Business Law (2005) Jan, 91-112
• L. Bently, ‘The return of industrial copyright?’ E.I.P.R. (2012), 34(10), 654-672
• D. Bainbridge, ‘Why the design right is failing innovators’ E.I.P.R. (1999) 21(9), 423-426
• R. Natoli, ‘The spare parts issue in Italy after the new Design Law: is there still room for an
automobile manufacturers' monopoly?’ International Review of Intellectual Property and
Competition Law (2002) 33(6), 688-697
• C. Young and R. Mallinson, ‘Industrial plagiarism and the "gap" in design protection’
E.I.P.R. (2005) 27(2), 68-71
• I. Silverman, ‘Optimising protection: IP rights in 3D printing’ E.I.P.R. (2016) 38(1), 5-10

32
11. Passing off

Cases
• Ad Lib Club Ltd v Glanville [1972] RPC 673*
• AG Spalding & Bros v AW Gamage Ltd (1915) 32 RPC 273)*
• Anheuser Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar NP [1984] FSR 397
• BBC v. Talksport Ltd [2001] F.S.R. 53*
• British Broadcasting Corporation v Talbot Motors Co Ltd [1981] FSR 228
• Cadbury-Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 213*
• Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisse de Chocolat v. Cadbury Limited [1999] RPC 826
(C.A)
• Diageo North America Inc v Intercontinental Brands Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 920 (vodka)
• Erven Warnink BV v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Ltd [1980] RPC 31*
• Fage v Chobani [2014] EWCA Civ 5*
• Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch)*
• Freddy Spa v Hugz Clothing [2020] EWCH 3032 IPEC
• Harrods Ltd v R Harrod Ltd (1924) 41 RPC 74
• HFC Bank plc v. Midland Bank plc [2000] FSR 176
• Hodgkinson & Corby Ltd v. Wards Mobility Ltd [1995] FSR 175
• Hotel Cipriani v Cipriani (Grovesnor Street) [2010] EWCA Civ 110
• J. Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co Ltd [1961] RPC 116
• L’Oreal v Bellure NV [2008] EWHC 2355 Ch; [2008] ETMR 1 (CA).
• Lego Systems Aktieselskab v Lego M Lemelsttich Ltd [1983] FSR 155
• Moroccanoil v Aldi [2014] EWHC 1686 (IPEC)
• Phones 4U Ltd v Phone4U.co.uk Internet Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 244
• Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] RPC 341 (HL)*
• Reddaway v. Banham [1896] A.C. 199:
• Sheraton Corporation v. Sheraton Motels [1964] RPC 202
• Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd v Alfred McAlpine plc [2004] RPC 36
• Spalding v. Gamage (1915) 32 RPC 273, HL*
• Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc [2015] UKSC 31 *
• Sweeney v. Macmillan Publishers Ltd [2002] RPC 35

Essential reading

• Brown, Chapter 16, pp. 655-696.

• Carty, “Heads of Damage in Passing Off” [1996] 9 EIPR 487
• H. Carty, ‘Advertising, publicity rights and English law’ [2004] IPQ 209
• E K Oke, ‘Image rights and passing off: should reputation be enough for celebrities to
succeed in English courts?’ (2020) 15 (1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice
pp. 49–54.

33
Suggested reading

• H. Carty, ‘Dilution and passing off: cause for concern’, (1996) 112 LQR 632
• H. Carty, ‘Passing Off: frameworks for liability debated’ [2012] IPQ 106
• C. Walsh, ‘Are personality rights finally on the UK agenda?’ [2013] EIPR 253
• Hearst Holdings v AVELA [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch)

Further reading

• Aplin and Davis, (2013), pp. 256-316 plus pp. 505-517 (on personality/character
merchandising), 529 – 533 (on the justifications for a publicity right)
• E Perot, ‘Image rights in context’ (2020) 15 (3) Journal of Intellectual Property Law &
Practice, pp. 147–148.
• M. Spence, ‘Passing off and the misappropriation of valuable intangibles’, (1996) 112 LQR
472
• J. Phillips, ‘Life after death’ [1998] EIPR 201
• G. Black, ‘Publicity and image rights in Scots law’, (2010) Edin. L. R 364
• C. Wadlow, ‘Passing Off at the crossroads again, a review article for H. Carty, ‘An Analysis
of the Economic Torts’ [2011] EIPR 447
• F. Hofmann, ‘The right to publicity in German and English Law’ [2010] IPQ 325
• H. Beverley Smith and L. Barrow, ‘Talk that tort ... of passing off: Rihanna, and the scope of
actionable misrepresentation: Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop)’ [2014]
EIPR 57
• J. Blum and T. Ohta, ‘Personality disorder: strategies for protecting celebrity names and
images in the UK’ [2014] J.I.P.L.P. 137-147.

34