Search results

Ginfringement: Success for M&S in the Court of Appeal in registered design spat with Aldi

Published on 15 Mar 2024. By Rory Graham, Associate and Georgia Davis, Of Counsel

M&S and Aldi's gin bottle battle over design rights has reached a conclusion (for now) as the Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the IPEC's decision that Aldi's bottle infringed M&S' design.

Clear as gin: M&S and Aldi take liquor bottle battle to the Court of Appeal

Published on 26 Jan 2024. By Rory Graham, Associate and Georgia Davis, Of Counsel

Intellectual property enthusiasts' favourite supermarket adversaries were back at loggerheads this week as M&S and Aldi appear before the Court of Appeal. The pair sought to thrash out a first instance decision handed down in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) regarding alleged infringement of M&S' registered design rights in a gin bottle.

M&S v Aldi – lookalike claims lit up by design rights

Published on 24 Mar 2023. By Ciara Cullen, Partner and Harpreet Kaur, Associate

As lookalike products rise in prominence, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court's (IPEC) recent ruling that the sale and advertisement of Aldi's 'Infusionist' range of favoured gins infringed M&S's UK registered designs protecting the light-up bottles containing its 'Snow Globe' gin range (Marks and Spencer PLC v Aldi Stores Limited [2023] EWHC 178) highlights the utility of registered design rights in circumstances where other intellectual property rights (IPR) are often less able to provide protection.

Lookalikes and passing off—bottle design get-up claim (Au Vodka)

Published on 07 Nov 2022. By Ciara Cullen, Partner and Sarah Mountain, Partner and Samuel Coppard, Senior Associate

Currently there's significant activity in the lookalikes space. The Au Vodka claim (Au Vodka v NE10 Vodka [2022] EWHC 2371), which focuses on bottle design 'get-up', arrived in the courts for an interim injunction hearing in September 2022. Au Vodka's application was dismissed. The judgment shows that passing off—get-up claims based on shape can be challenging to bring, particularly at the interim stage, and prompts the question of whether it's possible to bring Cofemel and copyright into the lookalikes arena.

Weighty issues for diet app developers

Published on 04 Jan 2022. By Dorothy Flower, Partner

2022 is set to be the year of the diet app. The distinction between what is a mere lifestyle app and what should in fact be a regulated medical product or service can be difficult to assess.

William Grant & Sons v Lidl: where to be-gin?

Published on 16 Jun 2021. By Ciara Cullen, Partner and Ben Mark, Partner and Sarah Mountain, Partner

On 25 May 2021, the Scottish Court of Session (SCOS) granted an interim interdict (akin to an interim injunction), which prevents Lidl from selling its own brand 'Hampstead gin' in Scottish stores, pending the outcome of the matter at trial.

Stay on top of Intellectual Property

Published on 20 Apr 2021. By Ciara Cullen, Partner and Ben Mark, Partner and Sarah Mountain, Partner

Whether you’re just starting out or launching a new product, there are a wealth of intellectual property issues to consider in the world of distilling. Here, Ciara Cullen, Ben Mark and Sarah Mountain outline those do’s and don’ts, the changing landscape and how to thrive in 2021 and beyond.

Telecoms supply agreement excludes "loss of profit" claim under "anticipated profits" liability exclusion (EE v Virgin Mobile)

Published on 25 Aug 2023. By Helen Armstrong, Partner and Ben Harris, Associate and Joshy Thomas, Knowledge Lawyer

In line with a number of recent cases, in EE Limited v Virgin Mobile Telecoms Limited [2023] EWHC 1989 (TCC) the courts have shown that parties generally cannot avoid clear wording contained in exclusion clauses in order to recover losses that have been expressly excluded (in this case, loss of profits).

Rolls-Royce entitled to hit the brakes in dispute over termination of a software services agreement (Topalsson v Rolls-Royce)

Published on 14 Aug 2023. By Helen Armstrong, Partner and Ben Harris, Associate and Joshy Thomas, Knowledge Lawyer

In Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited [2023] EWHC 1765 (TCC), the High Court has provided useful guidance on how to determine whether a software implementation timeline agreed by the parties is binding, when implementation is considered complete and in what circumstances failing to complete implementation by the contractual deadlines entitles the customer to terminate the contract.

A narrow escape – software services provider entitled to rely on single aggregate liability cap (Drax v Wipro)

Published on 25 Jul 2023. By Helen Armstrong, Partner and Ben Harris, Associate and Joshy Thomas, Knowledge Lawyer

When it comes to bespoke software development projects, a lot can go wrong. There's risk for the customer such as project delays, software defects, functionality issues and a lack of meeting of minds in terms of project requirements.

Chambers Asia Pacific recommends RPC Premier Law in three categories

Published on 15 Dec 2023.

Chambers Asia Pacific recommends RPC Premier Law in three categories, with a new ranking for Corporate/M&A: Domestic in its recently published 2024 edition.

New digital markets regime guidance published for consultation

Published on 28 Jun 2024. By Tom McQuail, Partner and David Cran, Partner, Head of IP & Tech and Melanie Musgrave, Of Counsel and Leonia Chesterfield, Of Counsel and Ben Powell, Associate

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024. This article considers who will be impacted by the new digital markets regime, the requirements it will introduce, and how it may be enforced, and summarises the CMA’s new draft guidance under consultation on how it intends to implement the regime in practice.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act – the Competition Perspective

Published on 28 Jun 2024. By Tom McQuail, Partner and Chris Ross, Partner and Melanie Musgrave, Of Counsel and Leonia Chesterfield, Of Counsel

This article considers the key changes to general competition law under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act which received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and is expected to enter into force in the Autumn.

Delay at your peril: High Court holds that two week delay causes party to lose right to object to irregularity in arbitration

Published on 02 Aug 2023. By Ana Margetts, Associate and Tatiana Minaeva, Partner and Head of Investor-State Arbitration

In Radisson Hotels v Hayat Otel, (1). the High Court found that the claimant ("Radisson") had lost its right to challenge an arbitration award (the "Award") by continuing to take part in the proceedings for a period of two weeks after becoming aware of improper conduct by one of the arbitrators (the "Arbitrator"). The court also rejected Radisson's subsequent application seeking to redact the identities of the parties and any details which might identify them in the judgment, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the underlying arbitration (2). While the judge acknowledged Radisson's desire to keep the arbitration confidential, this ultimately did not outweigh the general public interest in open justice.

Best of both worlds with PD57AC? High Court allows opinion evidence in factual witness statement

Published on 02 Aug 2023. By Rosy Gibson, Associate

The High Court has allowed the witness statement of a factual witness even though the claimant had previously intended to instruct him as an expert and his statement contained opinion evidence (Polypipe Limited v Peter Russell Davidson) ([2023] EWHC 1691 (Comm). The judge confirmed that such evidence is admissible where the witness is suitably qualified, but it will not be accorded the same weight as a formal expert report. Separately, this appears to be the first reported case in which the court accepted that permission for an extension to the deadline for expert reports could be made conditional on disclosure of any unserved report(s), though the court declined to prescribe that condition in this case.

Scots law decision confirms that privilege doesn’t change its spots

Published on 19 Jul 2023. By Tim Potts, Senior Associate and Parham Kouchikali, Partner

The Scots law judgment in University of Dundee v Chakraborty [2023] CSIH 22 has reiterated that whether or not a document is protected by legal professional privilege is determined at the point in time at which the document is created. A non-privileged document cannot later acquire privileged status. The judgment also made certain findings about waiver of privilege which may be more controversial, particularly in the context of regulatory investigations.

Court of Appeal orders solicitor be struck off for serious breaches of accounts rules

Published on 27 Jun 2023. By Sumarsono Darsono, Partner and Jennifer Leung, Associate

In an important judgment in Law Society of Hong Kong v A Solicitor, the Court of Appeal set aside an order that a solicitor be suspended from practice for 24 months and substituted it with an order that he be struck off from the roll of solicitors.

Book Launch – A Commentary on the LCIA ARB Rules Edition 2

25 Apr 2023

We are delighted to welcome you to join us for the official book launch of "A Commentary on the LCIA Arbitration Rules" written by Philip Clifford KC and Shai Wade.

Singapore Court of Appeal Sends Acceleration of Interest Payment Clause To The Penalty Box

Published on 24 Apr 2023. By Yuankai Lin, Partner

Commercial contracts commonly include clauses providing for liquidated damages, accelerated repayment or late payment interest in the event one party breaches the contract.

Case Note: Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1 – Examining the law governing arbitrability at the pre-award stage

Published on 08 Mar 2023. By Yuankai Lin, Partner and Selina Toh, Senior Associate

The Court of Appeal ("CA") in the case of Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] SGCA 1 ("Anupam Mittal") had to determine a previously undecided point of law in Singapore: which system of law governs the arbitrability of a dispute at the pre-award stage, i.e., the law of the seat of the arbitration (lex fori) or the law governing the arbitration agreement.

Doctrine of separability in arbitration: should the arbitration agreement and the main contract "sink or swim" together or alone?

Published on 07 Mar 2023. By Shai Wade, Partner, Head of International Arbitration and Jessica Davies, Associate

In DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered the arbitration law doctrine of separability.

Arbitration jurisdictional challenge no bar to English court ordering compliance with a tribunal peremptory order

Published on 02 Mar 2023. By Fred Kuchlin, Senior Associate and Tatiana Minaeva, Partner and Head of Investor-State Arbitration

The Court of Appeal has found that the English court may grant an order requiring a party to comply with a peremptory order of a tribunal before the determination of an outstanding challenge to jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Hong Kong – At a glance: major changes to cross-border enforcement of judgments in Hong Kong and mainland China

Published on 17 Feb 2023. By Samuel Hung, Partner and Anson Lo, Associate

The highly anticipated Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (the Ordinance) is set to take effect in mid-2023. Once the Ordinance is in place, applicants will be able to enforce a broader range of mainland judgments in Hong Kong by way of a registration procedure and vice versa in relation to Hong Kong judgments in mainland China.

Hong Kong – Parties agreed settlement terms without formal settlement agreement

Published on 19 Jan 2023. By Antony Sassi, Managing Partner, Asia and Rebecca Wong, Partner and James Lee, Associate

In MSB International Ltd v Lok & Anor , the Court of First Instance of the High Court found that the parties had agreed a full and final settlement of all their claims in two related proceedings, by way of an exchange of without prejudice written communications between their legal representatives, although no formal draft settlement agreement referring to more comprehensive release terms and stated to be "subject to contract" had been agreed.

No need for late night panic: Court of Appeal decides that midnight e-filing is permissible

Published on 22 Dec 2022. By Simon Hart, Partner, Head of Banking & Financial Markets Disputes

The Court of Appeal recently considered the short, but important, procedural question of whether a document may be filed electronically at any time up to midnight on the date by which the document is due.

Great Peace confirmed: High Court decides that test for common mistake is settled

Published on 22 Dec 2022. By Simon Hart, Partner, Head of Banking & Financial Markets Disputes and Emily Saffer, Associate

The High Court has clarified the test to void a contract for common mistake in John Lobb S.A.S v John Lobb Ltd, confirming that the four part test laid down by the Court of Appeal in Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Ttsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd remains the relevant test.

The FTX fallout so far and what may come next

Published on 16 Dec 2022. By Dan Wyatt, Partner

The collapse of FTX Trading Ltd. has been as dramatic as it has been fast. Until then, FTX had been the second-largest exchange in the world.

Three Crypto firsts for the English courts

Published on 22 Nov 2022. By Dan Wyatt, Partner and George Fahey , Associate

The recent judgment handed down in Jones v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2543 (Comm) contained three firsts in the English Court: the imposition of a constructive trust between a crypto exchange and a victim of crypto fraud, an order for delivery up of Bitcoin, and summary judgment served by NFT airdrop. It shows the English courts' continued willingness to push the boundaries of English law in relation to the recovery of misappropriated cryptoassets. The innovative application of English law procedures and remedies to the growing problem of crypto theft and fraud is of considerable assistance to the victims of this pernicious and widespread fraudulent activity.

Court of Appeal refuses to drive "a coach and horses" through the concept of a limited liability company in joint tortfeasor decision

Published on 27 Oct 2022. By Karina Plain, Associate (Australian qualified) and Charlotte Henschen (née Ducker), Partner

The Court of Appeal upheld a finding of corporate liability, but no director accessory liability, for failure to advise of risks of property investment scheme, despite the director being the driving force behind the company's marketing of the scheme.

A balancing act: IMF confidentiality obligations do not trump duty of disclosure in Argentinian securities dispute

Published on 27 Oct 2022.

This case serves an illustration of the factors that the court will take into consideration when weighing up the competing interests of confidentiality obligations against the duty of disclosure, here under the rules of the disclosure pilot under PD 51U. The court found that confidentiality obligations owed to the IMF did not override the duty of disclosure. The court took into account both the scope of the confidentiality obligation and the relevancy and contemporaneous quality of the documents.

Hong Kong court grants reported Norwich Pharmacal in aid of execution

Published on 27 Oct 2022. By Charles Allen, Partner & Head of Hong Kong office

Unsurprisingly, claimants want to be able to enforce their judgments, especially when the underlying proceedings have been hard-fought and (therefore) expensive.

Hong Kong Court of Appeal: pre-arbitration compliance is a matter of admissibility, not jurisdiction

Published on 07 Oct 2022. By Charles Allen, Partner & Head of Hong Kong office and Michelle Lai, Associate

The Court of Appeal, in C v D [2022] HKCA 729, has confirmed that compliance with pre-arbitration procedural requirements in a contractual escalation clause is an issue going to the admissibility of the claim, and not to the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction, and that consequently an arbitral tribunal's decision was not liable to be set aside by the Court for lack of jurisdiction under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

"Clear and unconditional communication" determines whether arbitrator appointment was valid

Published on 07 Sep 2022. By Anna Riquetti, Associate and Tatiana Minaeva, Partner and Head of Investor-State Arbitration

On 20 June 2022, the English High Court issued summary judgment in the case of ARI v WJX. The judgment arose from a dispute as to the validity of the arbitrator appointment in a London Maritime Arbitrators Association Arbitration (LMAA) and decided that it is the clear and unconditional communication by an arbitrator which determines whether their appointment was valid, as opposed to whether a contract had been formed with the arbitrator.

Court of Appeal confirms that conditional fee arrangements do not give rise to an implied a duty of good faith

Published on 01 Sep 2022. By Daniel Hemming, Partner

The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision that conditional fee agreements (CFAs) do not imply a duty of good faith on the part of the client. A firm of solicitors acting under a CFA who had been instructed by their client to settle proceedings on a "drop hands" basis, with no order for costs, was not entitled to recover costs from their client on the basis that the client had breached a duty of good faith. The ruling cautions solicitors who enter into CFAs about the risks of clients agreeing a settlement that deprives them of their entitlement to conditional fees.(1)

High Court confirms permission not needed for "Technology Assisted Review" to facilitate discovery in litigation

Published on 31 Aug 2022. By Jonathan Crompton, Partner and Flora Leung, Associate

China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Ltd (in liquidation) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu,(1) is a recent decision of the Court of First Instance of the High Court that confirms that court approval is not needed for the use of technology assisted review (TAR) to facilitate the discovery process pursuant to an agreed protocol between the parties, although the court has power to order the manner in which discovery of documents is undertaken between the parties if they apply to court.

"Specifically mentioned": High Court clarifies rules about documents referred to in evidence under the Disclosure Pilot

Published on 03 Aug 2022. By Connie O'Conor , Associate

In a judgment that has recently become publicly available (Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott and others [2022] EWHC 730 (Comm)) the High Court rejected the claimant's request for disclosure of documents referred to in a witness statement which were "bound to exist". In doing so, the court re-emphasised the importance of clarity and specificity in relation to requests for disclosure.

Back to basics on contract interpretation as Court of Appeal finds that natural meaning of settlement agreement prevails

Published on 01 Aug 2022. By Suera Hajzeri, Associate and Daniel Hemming, Partner

In Schofield & Anor v Smith & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 824, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of a group of companies, finding that a settlement agreement entered into between the group companies and their bank released the companies' former administrators and their solicitors from all relevant claims, even though the settlement agreement had been agreed without the involvement of the administrators, and after the administration of the group companies had been concluded.

Court of Appeal finds that damages-based agreements are not available to defendants

Published on 27 Jul 2022. By Simon Hart, Partner, Head of Banking & Financial Markets Disputes and Alastair Hall, Associate

The Court of Appeal has found that damages-based agreements (DBAs) are not available to non-counterclaiming defendants (Candey Ltd v Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors). [2022] EWCA Civ 936. In reaching this conclusion, the court held that agreements between legal representatives and defendant clients, which provide for payment to the legal representative of a percentage of sums that the client has resisted paying to its opponent (and where the client received no financial benefit from its opponent), were unlawful and unenforceable.

Financial Services Litigation Hong Kong Chapter

Published on 27 Jul 2022. By Jonathan Crompton, Partner and Lillian Wong, Associate

High Court holds litigation funder liable for costs that pre-dated funding agreement

Published on 22 Jul 2022. By Chris Ross, Partner

The Commercial Court has held a litigation funder to be jointly and severally liable for the defendants' costs from a date prior to the litigation funding agreement and despite the involvement of other funders in The ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank Plc & ors [2022] EWHC 1616 (Comm).

Commercial Court dismisses ECU claims against HSBC entities due to limitation

Published on 18 Jul 2022. By Simon Hart, Partner, Head of Banking & Financial Markets Disputes and Jake Hardy, Partner

The Commercial Court has provided a timely reminder of the importance of limitation periods, along with the application of the law of causation in the context of claims that relate to foreign exchange markets.

First judgment obtained in proceedings brought by a cryptocurrency exchange in the English Courts

Published on 13 Jul 2022. By Christopher Whitehouse, Senior Associate and Jonathan Cary, Partner

In HDR v Shulev and Nexo [2022] EWHC 1685 (Comm), HDR (represented by RPC), which operates the cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX, initiated stakeholder proceedings under CPR Part 86 to resolve a dispute between two rival parties claiming control, and ownership of the contents, of a trading account.

Commercial Court applies "utility" approach to declarations in Italian local authority swaps case (Deutsche Bank v Comune Di Busto Arsizio)

Published on 13 Jul 2022. By Jake Hardy, Partner and Olivia Dhein, Knowledge Lawyer

Following on from a decision that an Italian local authority did not lack capacity to enter into a mirror swap and interest rate swap concluded with Deutsche Bank AG London (the Bank), the Commercial Court granted some of the declarations the Bank sought, which mostly tracked express contractual representations or terms of the transactions. The court also refused permission to appeal sought by the local authority, a stay of proceedings sought by the Bank and ordered the local authority to pay all costs (Deutsche Bank AG London v Comune Di Busto Arsizio).

Competing subordinated debts – the lessons learnt from Lehmans' insolvency

Published on 08 Jul 2022. By Jake Hardy, Partner

Some 13 years ago, Lehman Brothers' sudden and unexpected insolvency sent ripples across the banking and financial services market, some of which are still felt today. The Court of Appeal's decision in the consolidated cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Scottish LP 3 v Lehman Brothers Holdings plc (in administration) and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1523 was the latest in a long line of cases seeking to unwind the issues arising from Lehman Brothers' unexpected collapse.

High Court decides that reviving proceedings automatically stayed under CPR 15.11 requires relief from sanctions

Published on 29 Jun 2022. By Daniel Hemming, Partner and Tim Potts, Senior Associate

In a recent judgment, the English Commercial Court in Bank of America Europe DAC v CITTA Metropolitana Di Milano has provided guidance on the "automatic stay" provisions of CPR 15.11 and the circumstances in which parties can revive dormant proceedings subject to such an automatic stay.

High Court again highlights importance of the confidentiality embargo on a draft judgment

Published on 23 Jun 2022. By Harriet Evans, Associate and Charlotte Henschen (née Ducker), Partner

In keeping with the run of High Court decisions on the importance of the confidentiality embargo which attaches draft judgments, the IPEC has held that an embargo was breached when journalists were provided with a press release on confidential terms, prior to the judgment being formally handed down(1). While this was a breach, the judgment clarified that certain disclosures made internally to employees of the Defendants' company were permitted, as they fell within the intended scope of CPR Part 40 and its Practice Direction.

APP fraud: Commercial Court considers approach to unjust enrichment and knowing receipt claims

Published on 15 Jun 2022. By Jonathan Cary, Partner

The recent Commercial Court decision of Tecnimont Arabia Limited v National Westminster Bank PLC(1) considered the court's approach to a claim for unjust enrichment against a recipient bank in an authorised push payment (APP) fraud context. In particular, the Court examined whether the enrichment can be said to be at the 'expense' of the claimant, what factors amount to enrichment being 'unjust' and when the defence of 'change of position' is available. In relation to knowing receipt, the court considered the question of when property is 'trust property' for the purposes of the cause of action.

Injunction granted over stolen NFTs held on constructive trust

Published on 10 Jun 2022. By Christopher Whitehouse, Senior Associate and Dan Wyatt, Partner and George Fahey , Associate

In a highly anticipated judgment, the Commercial Court in Lavinia Deborah Osbourne v (1) Persons Unknown (2) Ozone Networks Inc held that "there is at least a realistically arguable case" that non-fungible tokens ('NFTs') are to be treated as property in English Law.