Legal costs are not always seen as the sexiest topic for a blogpost (anyone with colleagues who cycle into the office may have similar views about Lycra). However, the approach that the courts take toward costs is of huge practical importance and sometimes there is a decision which is sufficiently "wait, what?" that it deserves to be shared with a wider audience. I am talking of course about the Invista v Botes saga and the treatment of a Part 36 offer. What happened? In Janu

Just under four years ago the UK Intellectual Property Office commissioned research to address the lack of existing data on design infringement. The results of that research were published last week. My key takeaway is that the designs community does not appreciate the value of designs - particularly unregistered designs. This post aims to change that. Unregistered vs unregistered designs In the report, unregistered designs were rated at the bottom of the list of useful right

Four years is a long time in politics but not a particularly long time in the land of government reports. Just under four years ago the UK Intellectual Property Office commissioned research to address the lack of existing data on design infringement. The results of that research were recently published. Designs are an important part of the UK economy. In 2015, the UK design economy was worth 6% of the nation’s total economy. It was therefore considered a worthwhile exercise t

Although it is a case management decision, there are so many hints in the recent decision Spin Master v PMS [2017] EWHC 1477 (Pat) that Mr Justice Carr wants the judgment to get wider circulation.  As he puts it, the CMC raised the issue of "how to achieve short, cost-effective hearings where one or perhaps both parties are preparing for a much longer trial." Background to the dispute This dispute concerns alleged infringement of a Community registered design (002614669-0002)