Search results
31 results ordered by
All is not (necessarily) lost: Crypto crime recovery
With over 2 million people in the UK now holding and using cryptocurrency, and the Chancellor announcing that a government backed non-fungible token ("NFT") is to be issued by the Royal Mint this summer, the market for crypto-assets is expected to continue to grow in the coming months and years; so much so that legislation is planned to implement a new regulatory regime for the crypto market.
Read moreGinfringement: Success for M&S in the Court of Appeal in registered design spat with Aldi
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.
Read moreClear as gin: M&S and Aldi take liquor bottle battle to the Court of Appeal
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.
Read moreThaler v Comptroller [2023] UKSC 49: the UKSC rules that AI cannot be an 'inventor'
To the surprise of no one, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has finally ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be an inventor for the purposes of UK patent law. This judgment accords with the decisions of the lower courts in the UK and the initial ruling of the UKIPO. It also reflects similar findings from most of courts around the world where the claimant, Dr Thaler, brought similar actions.
Read moreGenerative AI and intellectual property rights—the UK government's position
The IPO is to produce a code of practice by the summer that will provide guidance to support AI firms in accessing copyright protected works as an input to their models.
Read moreM&S v Aldi – lookalike claims lit up by design rights
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.
Read moreLookalikes and passing off—bottle design get-up claim (Au Vodka)
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.
Read moreSky Kick Back! High Court finding of bad faith overturned by Court of Appeal in long-running Sky v Skykick saga
On 26 July 2021, the Court of Appeal (CoA) handed down its much-anticipated decision in the latest instalment of the Sky v Skykick trade mark dispute.
Read moreWilliam Grant & Sons v Lidl: where to be-gin?
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.
Read moreCopyright: Online platform operators’ liability for users illegally uploading copyright material
C-682/18 Frank Peterson v Google LLC and others and C 683/18 Elsevier Inc. v Cyando AG EU:C:2020:586 – A-G opinion
Read moreLandmark case sees trade mark specifications cut down on grounds of bad faith.
Today, the High Court handed down judgment in Sky v SkyKick. The judgment follows the CJEU's 29 January 2020 decision, which answered various questions that the High Court had referred to it, back in June 2018.
Read moreCOVID-19 prompts changes to working arrangements for the Court of Justice of the European Union
Prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the CJEU announced, on 19 March 2020, that it will be temporarily changing its working arrangements.
Read moreThe CAT's new approach: I can't afford a carriage (dispute)
Since the collective proceedings regime in the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) kicked off, a number of carriage disputes have arisen. So-called 'carriage disputes' arise when there are two or more competing proposed class representatives (PCRs) seeking certification (and therefore 'carriage') of overlapping class actions.
Read moreTribunal confirms no tax due on disposal of property held on trust for taxpayer's brother
In Raveendran v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 273 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal allowed the taxpayer's appeal against HMRC's discovery assessment in relation to the disposal of a property because it was held on trust for his brother.
Read moreTaxing Matters: Spotlight 63: HMRC shines a light on property business arrangements involving hybrid partnerships
In this episode, Alexis Armitage, RPC's Taxing Matters host and Senior Associate in our Tax Disputes team, is joined by Simon Howley and Amanda Perrotton from Bell Howley Perrotton LLP. They discuss HMRC's Spotlight 63, which focuses on property business arrangements involving hybrid partnerships, which have recently come to the attention of HMRC.
Read moreTribunal confirms loans from remuneration trust were disguised remuneration
In allowing HMRC's appeal in part, the Upper Tribunal determined that payments received under a remuneration trust scheme were caught by the anti-avoidance provisions in Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.
Read moreDealing with HMRC information notices
Considering three common types of HMRC information notices and the extent to which they can be challenged.
Read moreTax Bites – July 2024
Welcome to the latest edition of RPC's Tax Bites – providing monthly bite-sized updates from the tax world.
Read moreV@ update – June 2024
Welcome to the June 2024 edition of RPC's V@, a monthly update which provides insightful analysis and news from the VAT world.
Read moreTribunal awards taxpayer his costs due to HMRC's unreasonable conduct
In Aftab Ahmed v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00236 (TC), the First-tier Tribunal granted the taxpayer's application for costs as HMRC had acted unreasonably in defending the appeal.
Read moreTribunal allows entrepreneurs' relief appeal
In Cooke v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 272 (TC), the FTT allowed the taxpayer's appeal against HMRC's refusal of entrepreneurs' relief
Read moreExploring tax from an ESG perspective
In this month's episode, Alexis Armitage, RPC's Taxing Matters host and Senior Associate in our Tax Disputes team, is joined by Paul Monaghan, Chief Executive and co-founder of the Fair Tax Foundation to discuss the growing interest in tax from an ESG perspective, and the work of the Fair Tax Foundation.
Read moreA tax on conscience? A moral dilemma for non-residents
In HMRC v A Taxpayer, the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ for the purposes of the statutory residency test (SRT) in FA 2013. In overturning the decision of the First-tier Tribunal, the UT held that moral obligations, specifically the need to care for close relatives, were not exceptional circumstances, creating a potential dilemma for individuals when it comes to managing their tax residency status and their family life.
Read moreThe Times recognises RPC among Best Law Firms 2024
International law firm, RPC, has been recognised by The Times in its Best Law Firms 2024 report, an annual ranking of the top 250 law firms in England and Wales.
Read moreFull and frank disclosure means more than just putting relevant matters in evidence – a new year warning in UKIP v Braine & Others
New year, new reminder of the obligation to make full and frank disclosure in without notice applications, this time in the context of a falling out within the UKIP party. The obligation can only be satisfied by drawing the court's attention to legal or factual matters which could undermine the applicant's own application; it is not enough to simply put relevant matters in evidence before the court (UKIP v Braine & Others). Injunction, confidential, publication and non-disclosure.
Read moreStay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views
Subscribe Here