IP disputes

IP disputes may involve the typical IP rights such as patents, trade marks, rights to claim passing-off, copyright, design rights and confidential information/trade secrets. Particularly in the digital age, causes of action that arise out of ‘traditional’ IP rights may also be wrapped up with other legal issues such as defamation, data protection, and advertising and marketing regulation.

This topic contains guidance on strategic and practical steps for dealing with IP disputes, including ways of trying to avoid them in the first place.

Pre-action considerations

When considering starting infringement or invalidity proceedings, there are many strategic issues to take into account. The first step is often to draft an appropriate letter of claim or cease and desist letter. For more information, see Practice Note: How to draft a letter of claim in an IP dispute.

For examples, see Precedents:

  1. Letter of claim—patent infringement

  2. Letter of claim—trade mark infringement

  3. Letter of claim—passing off

  4. Letter of claim—copyright infringement

  5. Letter of claim—design right infringement

  6. Letter of claim—breach of confidence

  7. Letter

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest IP News

Does YouTube Shorts infringe registrations of SHORTS marks and are those registrations valid? (Shorts International Ltd v Google Llc)

IP analysis: The proceedings relate to Google’s YouTube Shorts service. Shorts International Ltd (SIL) claimed that Google’s use of certain signs in relation to its YouTube Shorts service amounted to infringement of SIL’s registered trade marks and passing off. Google claimed that there was no infringement or passing off and that SIL’s registered trade marks were invalid or should be revoked for non-use. It was held that, at the various relevant dates, most of SIL’s trade marks were valid, though the word mark ‘SHORTSTV’ was invalid for most goods and services, and that the other marks should be revoked for non-use for some goods and services. However, all SIL’s trade marks had low inherent distinctive character, and SIL’s use of its trade marks in the UK had not been extensive enough to claim enhanced distinctiveness. None of Google’s uses of signs including the word ‘shorts’ would give rise to a likelihood of confusion as to origin. There were significant similarities between the signs used by Google which included the word ‘shorts’ and SIL’s trade marks, but the similarities were for the descriptive elements rather than the elements of SIL’s trade marks which had some (but low) distinctive character. While SIL had protectable goodwill associated with its trade marks among a limited group of UK consumers, Google’s signs did not misrepresent its service as being provided by SIL or in some way authorised by SIL. Therefore, there was no passing off. Written by Milena Velikova, trade mark attorney and Helene Whelbourn, legal director at Lee & Thompson LLP.

View IP by content type :

Popular documents