Friday, 10 February 2017

London leads Start-up and Scale-up Tables for Digital Enterprise

Author Dbachman
Creative Commons Licence

Jane Lambert

The European Digital City Index (EDCi) was produced by Nesta as part of the European Digital Forum, EDCi provides information about the strengths and weaknesses of local economies in relation to the formation and growth of digital businesses.

The index applies a number of different criteria in drawing up its index which are set out in the Methodology section of its website.  Applying those criteria, Nesta produced the following table of leading European ciies for start-ups:
  1. London
  2. Stockholm
  3. Amsterdam 
  4. Helsinki
  5. Paris
  6. Berlin
  7. Copenhagen
  8. Dublin
  9. Barcelona
  10. Vienna.
For scale-ups, the table was:
  1. London
  2. Stockholm
  3. Paris
  4. Helsinki
  5. Amsterdam
  6. Copenhagen
  7. Berlin
  8. Munich
  9. Dublin
  10. Vienna
Why London? ESCi explains: 
"The city’s substantial financial sector is undoubtedly a major benefit: not only is London’s venture capital industry the most developed in Europe, but the presence of many financial services firms helps promote a growing number of fintech and crowdfunding startups, like Seedrs, Funding Circle, Transferwise, Wonga and DueDil. London is also the accelerator and coworking capital of Europe, as well as boasting a number of world-class universities. Its vibrant startup scene is supported by a strong creative cluster around ‘Silicon Roundabout’ and, despite Brexit fears, the city still attracts significant talent from all over the world."
Successful start-ups include Deliveroo, Made.comAppNexus and Borro.  ShazamTransferwiseWonga, FarFetchZoopla and are examples of successful scale-ups.

If anyone wants to discuss the legal aspects of starting a digital or any other business, call me on 020 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact form.

Business and IP Centre: Innovating for Growth

Jane Lambert

Two opportunities announced recently by the British Library Business and IP Centre:
  • Innovating for Growth: Scale - ups: three-month small business support programme offering over £10,000 worth of specialist advice; and 
  • Innovating for Growth: Start-ups: Two-day course.
The advice that successful candidates on the scale-up programme will receive is as follows: developing a growth strategy, refining the candidate's business model, product and service innovation, creating a marketing strategy, building a brand, maximizing intellectual property and business and market intelligence.

Application date 16 March 2017.

The two-day start-up course covers business planning, finance, marketing and other practical information and introductions to the resources of the Business and IP Centre and intellectual property.

Further information on the Business and IP Centre website (see Innovating for Growth: Scale - ups).

Monday, 11 July 2016

IP and Fashion: the Consequences of Brexit

UK and the remaining Member States

Jane Lambert

Last month I conducted a seminar on IP and fashion for MBL Seminars in London.  As the fashion industry relies on EU trade marks and registered Community designs more than most I have published on article on the effect of Brexit on the IP rights used in that industry.

In that article, IP and Fashion: the Effect of Brexit 10 July 2016 4-5 IP, I have referred to art 50 of the Treaty of European Union which provides that the EU Treaties and all legislation derived from them will cease to apply from the coming into force of the withdrawal agreement or two years after our giving notice to withdraw whichever occurs soonest. It follows that all EU legislation will fall away upon our leaving the EU but there will be a difference between legislation enacted by Parliament to give effect to EU directives and regulations made by the EU institutions.

Legislation made to give effect to EU directives such as out Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Registered Designs Act 1949 will remain in force because they are Acts of Parliament but regulations such as the EU Trade Mark Regulation and the Community Design Regulation will fall away immediately. As a result EU trade marks and registered Community designs will cease to apply to the UK, unregistered Community designs will dissolve and the courts of the UK will no longer have jurisdiction in EU trade mark and Community design disputes.

That will require a thorough review of all agreements relating to those rights and in some cases renegotiation and re-drafting. Inevitably legal costs will rise appreciably though these may be offset by costs savings here and there.  I shall be discussing these and other changes resulting from Brexit in a seminar in September. If in the meantime you wish to discuss any of these developments call me on 020 7404 5252 or contact me through this form.

Friday, 27 May 2016

Second Course on IP and the Fashion Industry

Bond Street
Author Surgeonsmate
Source Wikipedia
Creative Commons Licence

Jane Lambert

I am running a day long course on IP and the fashion industry for MBL at the London Bridge Novotel on 2 June 2016. It you want to attend it will set you back £480 unless you have a "smart plan" or season ticket and even then it will cost you £216 for the former and £240 for the latter. That's quite a lot of money that you or your firm would have to shell out and you will almost certainly want to know what you get for that money.

When MBL asked me to propose a synopsis for the course I looked at blogs like Wigs and Gowns and The Fashion Law, courses like the ones offered in the USA by Fordham University's Fashion Law Institute and announced by the London College of Fashion earlier this year (see Katie King London College of Fashion unveils first of its kind law course 20 Jan 2016 Legal Cheek) and conferences like the one run by the Italian government and the WIPO at Caserta in 2005. I read some recent cases involving fashion and retain brands in the Fleet Streets and Reports of Patent Cases and made a keyword search of BAILII and the IPO websites. I could find no consistency of approach whatsoever.

I had more luck looking through my old opinions and pleadings and talking to some of the solicitors and patent and trade mark agents who had instructed me. It occurred to me that the starting point might be to imagine the sort of clients who would attend a course on law and the fashion industry and find out what interests them most.

The first conclusion I reached is that it is unhelpful to talk about the fashion industry. There are in fact several industries which include couturiers, Savile Row tailors, garment and textile manufacturers, importers and wholesalers, high street retailers and internet distributors. They all have different concerns and are often interested in a different IP issues.

I have structured the course around three themes:

  • Advising the designer;
  • Advising the manufacturer; and 
  • Advising the retailer.
I introduce each topic with a general summary of the law and then offer questions for discussion such as "What are the IP issues in selling on line?" and "How (if at all) does the Supreme Court's decision in Trunki affect textile, garment, jewellery and accessory designers?" That enables delegates to learn from each other as well as from me and I've learned from attendees too.

I have now run two courses on IP for the fashion industry for MBL. One at the Novotel where I found out what worked (see IP and Fashion Law 12 Sept 2015) and what did not and another in Leeds where everything seemed to go like clockwork. My third talk at the Novotel will follow the formula that worked in Leeds. 

I am looking forward to this course very much and I hope that my attendees enjoy the day too. If you want to find out more about this seminar call me on 020 7404 5252 or contact me on message form.

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

You wouldn't use a wood to get out of a bunker: seeking and using IP advice

A Set of Clubs
Author Post406
Source Wikipedia
Creative Commons Licence

Jane Lambert

On 23 Feb 2016 the Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") updated its guidance Seeking intellectual property advice. In its passage on Invention Promotion Companies it warns:
"Some unreliable firms promise to evaluate your invention for a fee of a few hundred pounds. They then tell you that your invention has great market potential. They may offer to promote your invention to manufacturers if you pay a fee of several thousand pounds up front. Once you have paid up, they may do little or nothing for you."
"If an invention promotion firm approaches you", it urges, "take great care." Very good advice which us repeated frequently by patent offices, consumer protection organizations, inventors' clubs and IP professionals the world over.

Yet despite those warnings more and more people fall for the promises of such companies and find themselves seriously out of pocket as a result. "Why is that?" one might ask. Part of the answer is that innovation companies offer a simple solution to the question how do I get my new product or business to market without anyone else nicking my idea.

Unfortunately, protecting a new  idea long enough for it to make a reasonable return for its creators is not usually a straightforward matter because the law favours competition and freedom to carry on business. The world's very first intellectual property legislation, The Statute of Monopolies 1623, was in fact a statute to abolish monopolies and restraints of trade. Parliament recognized, however, that it is expensive and risky to develop new products and processes and that businesses need some respite from unbridled competition as an incentive to invest in new inventions.

For that reason there is no one stop intellectual property shop. You need all the professionals mentioned in the IPO's guidance to get the right legal protection for your business idea. 

You need a patent attorney to apply on your behalf for a British or European patent for your invention in the United Kingdom and he or she should also be able to help you get one for other countries. If you have a trade name or logo that needs protecting a trade mark attorney can make an application to the IPO or European Intellectual Property Office for British or European Union trade mark.  Patent and trade mark attorneys should also be able to help you get registered and registered Community designs from the IPO or EUIPO. 

If you need a licence from a third party to make a product, use a process or carry on business under a franchise a specialist solicitor or barrister can help you negotiate one. Such a solicitor or barrister can also draw up terms upon which others can use your invention, design or other intellectual asset.  If you believe that your intellectual property right has been infringed or if you are accused of infringing someone else's rights he or she should help you resolve your dispute satisfactorily.

Each of those professionals has his or her own special skills and training for a particular job. In that way thet are rather like the woods and irons in your golf bag. There was a time when you had to instruct a solicitor or patent or trade mark attorney in order to consult a barrister but you can now instruct many of them directly under the Public Access scheme

Instructing a public access barrister is often a good way of finding other professionals that you may need such as patent or trade mark attorneys, solicitors or foreign lawyers. Through our work we get to know a lot of those professionals and what they can do. Although there is now plenty of overlap between our work and the work of other professionals we have a professional duty to refer a client to a solicitor. patent or trade mark attorney or other intermediary if that is in the client's best interests. As our core work is advice on difficult points of law, drafting complex legal instruments and oral and written advocacy we tend to refer patent and trade mark prosecution to patent and trade mark attorneys and litigation to solicitors. Our relationship with those other professionals is in that regard rather like the relationship that subsists between a consultant surgeon or physician and general medical practitioner. 

I am often asked whether there is a duplication of effort or additional expense in instructing different professionals. Sometimes that happens where for example a litigator attempts to do work that is better left to an advocate but it should not. Indeed, it should actually save time and costs.

If you want to discuss this article or IP advice in general call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Saturday, 12 September 2015

IP and Fashion Law

Jane Lambert at the Blackfriars, Novotel
(c) Gita Mistry 2015 All rights reserved

Last Thursday I conducted a day long seminar on Intellectual Property and the Fashion Industry at the Blackfriars Road Novotel. The above photographs shows me interacting with the audience.  I had 20 attendees drawn from law firms big and small, patent and trade mark agencies and in-house legal departments.

The course covered:
  • Basic concepts and terminology
  • Advising the designer
  • Advising the manufacturer
  • Advising the retailer
  • Dispute resolution
  • Counterfeiting and piracy
  • Developing an IP strategy, and
  • Applying what had been learned to everyday practice.
Rather than read from notes and slides I taught the course by setting typical problems such as
"The day after a royal baby makes his or her first public appearance you want to sell a similar set of baby clothes. How would you set about doing that without being sued?"
"What provisions would you place in a contract with a supplier from Bangladesh?"
I got that idea from Ross Burrows of Burrows Law because that is how he taught the public access top-up and litigation courses which I took last year. He built on participants' knowledge and experience which he encouraged us to share.  I decided to do the same  next time I taught a CPD training course.

Preparing such courses requires a lot more work on the part of the trainer but it aids comprehension and retention.  The overwhelming response of the London group was very positive according to the feedback forms.

If you missed the course in London you can catch me in Leeds on 7 Oct 2015.  Quite apart from what you may learn from me on the course you can check out the exciting young designers at Lambert's Yard or the Textile Centre of Excellence in Huddersfield. Leeds is one of the major fashion centres outside London as you can see from this video of the recent Leodis Forum. You can book on-line or call MBL on 0161 793 0984. 

Wednesday, 12 August 2015

Oppositions in the IPO's Trade Marks Registry

Author Bubba73
Source Wikipedia
Licensed under Creative Commerce Licence

Jane Lambert

On Monday I discussed the different types of hearings that can take place in the Intellectual Property Office when there is an objection to an application to register a trade mark  (see If the examiner says "no" - ex parte hearings in the Trade Marks Registry 10 Aug 2015 London IP and Tech Law). If the examiner (the official who considers an application) objects to it the applicant can discuss it with a senior official known as a hearing officer. This is called an ex parte proceeding because only the applicant is involved. If a third party objects to an application a hearing officer will adjudicate the dispute between the person who opposes the application ("the opponent") and the applicant. Those proceedings are called  inter partes because they are between different parties.

How Opposition Proceedings arise

Those who might object to an application usually first learn of it when it is published in the Trade Marks Journal. Many trade mark proprietors instruct their attorneys to arrange for someone to monitor the Journal for applications for marks that are similar to their own registrations. Such monitoring is known as a "watch service". An objector may make written observations to the examiner as to whether a trade mark should be registered under s.38 (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 without becoming a party to inter partes proceedings with all the risk and expense that entails.  Before The Trade Marks (Relative Grounds) Order 2007 came into force, the examiner could take account of earlier registrations or other rights when deciding whether to grant an application. Now he or she can only bring the observations to the applicant's attention. If the applicant insists on proceeding the objector must oppose the application or stand aside.

Grounds of Objection

There are two sets of grounds upon which an opponent can object to a trade mark application:
  • absolute grounds such as those that I discussed in Monday's article; and
  • relative grounds: that is to say, the opponent has registered, or applied to register, a the same or similar trade mark for the same or similar goods or services in the UK, EU or a group of countries that includes the UK or EU under the Madrid Protocol or the opponent can prevent the use of the applicant's mark by bringing an action for passing off or infringement of copyright, registered design or some other intellectual property right.
Relative grounds of refusal are set out in s.5 of the Trade Marks Act 1993.

Pre-Action Negotiations

Although proceedings in the IPO are generally less expensive than proceedings in the courts the Registrar expects parties to try to settle their differences amicably.  Before taking proceedings, the opponent should explain his or her objection to the applicant in a letter before claim enclosing any relevant documentation relied upon and invite the applicant to withdraw his or her trade mark application or restrict the goods or services for which registration is sought. If the applicant does not want to do that he or she should explain why with reasons and evidence in a timely letter of response.  Once their differences have been identified, the parties or their professional representatives may try to resolve them through direct negotiation or mediation. Both the IPO and the WIPO offer specialist mediation services as do our chambers (see IP Mediation 22 May 2015 4-5 IP). Such negotiations or mediation have to proceed with alacrity as there is usually a 2 month time limit from publication in the Journal for an opposition to be lodged though that can be extended to 3 months if the opponent files a Notice of threatened opposition in Form TM7A.

Starting Proceedings

If the parties cannot resolve their differences amicably the opponent commences proceedings by lodgung a Notice of opposition and statement of grounds in Form TM7 and paying the appropriate fee.  The statement of grounds are the equivalent of particulars of claim in civil proceedings. At one time a statement of grounds resembled particulars of claim and had to be settled by the opponent's counsel or attorneys. Nowadays they are reduced to a questionnaire. The amount of the fee will depend on the ground upon which the opponent opposes the application. If it is on the ground that he or she has registered the same or similar mark for the same or similar goods under s.5 (1) of (2) the fee is only £100. If he or she opposes the application on some other ground the cost of the opposition increases to £200. If the Notice of opposition and statement of grounds are in order the IPO sends them to the applicant in accordance with rule 17 (8) of the Trade Marks Rules 2008.

Responding to the Application

The applicant usually has up to 2 months to respond to the opposition. If he or she wishes to do so, the applicant must file a Notice of defence and counterstatement in Form TM8. This is like a defence in civil proceedings. Its purpose is to identify the issues that are in dispute. Like the Notice of opposition and statement of grounds the Notice of defence and counterstatement is reduced to a questionnaire. No fee is charged for filing Form TM8.

Preliminary Indication

Once Form TM7 or TM8 have been filed the case will be referred to a hearing officer. If the opposition is based on an earlier registration or application to register under s.5 (1) or (2) of the Act the hearing officer may give a preliminary indication as to whether the application should proceed or be refused under s. 5 (1) or (2). The opponent or, as the case may be, applicant then has up to one month to decide whether to persevere with the opposition or application. If that party decides to do so, he or she must file a Form TM53 and serve it on the other party or parties. If he or she fails to do that in time, the opposition or, as the case may be, application will be deemed to have been withdrawn.


If no preliminary indication is given or if a party files a Form TM53 the hearing officer will direct the parties to file the evidence upon which they rely. Usually that takes the form of written statements from each of the witnesses that a party wishes to call but it may also be in the form of a statutory declaration or affidavit. Witness statements set out the witness's testimony in numbered paragraphs and is verified by a statement of truth. If the other side wishes to cross examine that witness he or she verifies it with or without modification on affirmation or oath. The witness statement then stands as that witness's evidence in chief. If the witness wishes to refer to a document it is usual to exhibit a copy of the document to the witness statement.

Further Negotiations or Mediation

Negotiations to settle the opposition often resume or begin once the statements of case have been exchanged and the evidence has been filed and served. There is less time pressure at this stage and the parties can request extra time for negotiations or mediation.

Electing a Hearing

If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute either side may request a hearing or indicate that he or she is content for the hearing officer to decide the issues on the documents only. The incentive to dispense with a hearing is that the costs that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay under Tribunal Practice Notice 2/2000 are very much less than the costs that would be awarded after a full hearing. If neither party asks for a hearing the parties will be allowed to file written arguments in support of their case.

Skeleton Arguments

Shortly before the hearing the parties or their professional representatives are expected to exchange summaries of the arguments that they intend to make and references to the statutes, cases and text book passages upon which they rely and lodge copies of those documents with the hearing officer. Those summaries are known as "skeleton arguments". A party is usually allowed some latitude in amplifying, clarifying or otherwise modifying his or her skeleton once he or she is on his or her feet but he or she will not be allowed to take the other side by surprise.

Conduct of the Hearing

Hearings take place at the IPO's offices in Newport and London. Unless a witness has to be cross-examined the hearing officer may conduct the proceedings by video link or telephone. It is not uncommon for the parties or their representatives to be in London and the hearing officer to sit in Newport. The video transmission link between London and Newport is very high quality and tantamount to being in the same room.

The hearing is opened by the opponent who makes sure that the relevant materials are before the hearing officer and the other side. He or she identifies the issues to be decided, outlines his or her case and how he or she intends to prove it and the legal submissions upon which he or she relies. The opponent then calls his or her witnesses if any. After the witness has identified his or her evidence in chief he or she is cross-examined by the other side. The opponent may re-examine the witness on any point raised in cross-examination that needs to be explained or clarified.

Once the opponent has presented his or her case the applicant calls his or her witnesses or makes his or her submissions in reply. The opponent may cross-examine the applicant's witnesses on their statements and the applicant may re-examine them.

After the applicant has presented his or her submissions the opponent may reply to them.

The hearing officer concludes the hearing by indicating that he will deliver a written decision in due course. It usually follows a couple of months after the hearing.


The hearing officer has power to order the unsuccessful party to contribute to the successful party's costs. The principles on which he or she makes such an award are set out in TPN 2/2000 (which I mentioned above) and TPN 4/2007. Unless a party has conducted his or her case so unreasonably or behaved so badly that the other side has incurred costs unnecessarily the hearing officer will award costs on a fixed scale. They are never more than a fraction of the actual costs incurred. A few hundred pounds for a decision on the documents and a few thousand if there has been a contested hearing.


As in ex parte proceedings the unsuccessful party has a right of appeal either to the Appointed Person or the court. The advantage of appealing to the Appointed Person is that the costs are limited to those awarded by the hearing officer. The disadvantage is that his or her decision cannot be appealed except, perhaps, by judicial review. The costs of an unsuccessful appeal to the Chancery Division in England or Northern Ireland (Court of Session in Scotland) are higher but there is always the chance to appealing to the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court. Permission is not required to appeal either to the Appointed Person or court.


Parties may represent themselves before hearing officers or they may instruct patent or trade mark attorneys, solicitor advocates or counsel. As trade mark law is complex and technical it is often to a party's advantage to instruct an attorney or specialist counsel or advocate. It is now possible and often advantageous for applicants or opponents to instruct a barrister to settle Forms TM7 or TM8, advise on evidence, settle witness statements or represent them before a hearing officer in a procedural or full hearing without also instructing an attorney or solicitor and many choose to do so.  It is also possible that your attorney or solicitor may wish to instruct me or some other counsel on such matters. If you want to consult me on any of those matters call me during office hours on 020 7404 5252 or use my contact form.

Further Reading

If you wish to act for yourself you should familiarize yourself with the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Trade Marks Rules 2008 and the Tribunal Practice Notices. I mentioned the IPO's very helpful guidance on Trade mark disputes resolution: hearings on Monday and you can get further guidance in the last chapter of the Trade Marks Manual. Finally, you should never forget that the 1994 Act implements an EU directive which has been interpreted and applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union and General Court and the courts of each of the EU member states. You will be able to access the directive and other legislation and some of that case law through the website of OHIM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market), the Community trade marks and designs registry.