Information Technology And Intellectual Property Law David I Bainbridge Editor

Information Technology And Intellectual Property
Law David I Bainbridge Editor download
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-
intellectual-property-law-david-i-bainbridge-editor-50233122
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Strategies For Information Technology And Intellectual Capital 1st
Edition Luiz Antonio Joia
https://ebookbell.com/product/strategies-for-information-technology-
and-intellectual-capital-1st-edition-luiz-antonio-joia-1539986
Privacy And Freedom Of Information In 21st Century Libraries Ltr A
Library Technology Report Office For Intellectual Freedom
https://ebookbell.com/product/privacy-and-freedom-of-information-
in-21st-century-libraries-ltr-a-library-technology-report-office-for-
intellectual-freedom-22487648
Information Technology And Egyptology In 2008 Nigel Strudwick
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-egyptology-
in-2008-nigel-strudwick-49450922
Information Technology And Egyptology In 2008 Proceedings Of The
Meeting Of The Computer Working Group Of The International Association
Of Egyptologists Informatique Et Egyptologie Vienna 811 July 2008
Nigel Strudwick Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-egyptology-
in-2008-proceedings-of-the-meeting-of-the-computer-working-group-of-
the-international-association-of-egyptologists-informatique-et-
egyptologie-vienna-811-july-2008-nigel-strudwick-editor-50342414

Information Technology And Military Power Jon R Lindsay
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-military-
power-jon-r-lindsay-51939300
Information Technology And Systems Icits 2024 Volume 2 Lvaro Rocha
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-systems-
icits-2024-volume-2-lvaro-rocha-56108092
Information Technology And Lawyers Advanced Technology In The Legal
Domain From Challenges To Daily Routine 1st Edition Arno R Lodder
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-lawyers-
advanced-technology-in-the-legal-domain-from-challenges-to-daily-
routine-1st-edition-arno-r-lodder-2021098
Information Technology And Managing Quality Education 9th Ifip Wg 37
Conference On Information Technology In Educational Management Item
2010 Kasane Botswana July 2630 2010 Revised Selected Papers 1st
Edition Don Passey Auth
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-managing-
quality-education-9th-ifip-wg-37-conference-on-information-technology-
in-educational-management-item-2010-kasane-botswana-
july-2630-2010-revised-selected-papers-1st-edition-don-passey-
auth-2123966
Information Technology And Mobile Communication International
Conference Aim 2011 Nagpur Maharashtra India April 2122 2011
Proceedings 1st Edition Vijay S Rajpurohit
https://ebookbell.com/product/information-technology-and-mobile-
communication-international-conference-aim-2011-nagpur-maharashtra-
india-april-2122-2011-proceedings-1st-edition-vijay-s-
rajpurohit-2210108

Information Technology and
Intellectual Property Law

ii

Information Technology and
Intellectual Property Law
Seventh edition
David I Bainbridge
BSc, LLB, PhD, MBCS, Chartered IT Professional, Barrister
Emeritus Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Aston University
Honorary Member, Hardwicke Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn

BLOOMSBURY PROFESSIONAL
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
41–43 Boltro Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 1BJ, UK
BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Copyright © David I Bainbridge, 2019
David I Bainbridge has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as Author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publishers.
While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility
for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a
result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers.
All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is
Crown Copyright ©. All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the
work is Parliamentary Copyright ©. This information is reused under the terms of the
Open Government Licence v3.0 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-
government-licence/version/3) except where otherwise stated.
All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/, 1998–2019.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: PB: 978 1 52650 684 9
ePDF: 978 1 52650 685 6
ePub: 978 1 52650 686 3
Typeset by Compuscript Ltd, Shannon
To find out more about our authors and books visit
www.bloomsburyprofessional.com. Here you will find extracts, author information,
details of forthcoming events and the option to sign up for our newsletters

v
Preface
A lot has happened since the previous edition of this book. There have been
significant developments both in intellectual property law and information
technology. In terms of intellectual property we have had clarification from
the Court of Justice as to the meaning of the act of communication to the
public, there is a new permitted act allowing the making of accessible format
copies for the blind, visually-impaired and those otherwise print-disabled.
There are also provisions for cross-border exchanges of accessible format
copies. Lending of e-books by public libraries will be possible soon. There
has been much controversy over certain provisions in the proposed Direc-
tive on copyright in the digital society which has now been approved by the
European Parliament after earlier rejection. This Directive should be adopted
in the near future.
There have been a number of cases on orders for blocking injunctions against
internet service providers (ISPs) including Cartier v BT in which the UK
Supreme Court considered whether the implementation costs should be borne
by the copyright owners applying for the injunctions or the ISPs against
whom the orders were sought. In the courts below, that case is also impor-
tant in accepting that blocking injunctions against ISPs could be granted for
online trade mark infringement even though there is no specific legislation
providing for such injunctions.
A trade secrets Directive was adopted in 2016 and was implemented in UK
law during 2018. This provides for focused protection for trade secrets and
clearly defined penalties for the unauthorised acquisition, use or disclosure
of trade secrets, potentially enhancing the existing protection of trade secrets
under the law of breach of confidence.
A major development in patent law is the forthcoming European patent with
unitary effect which, together with the Unified Patent Court, will greatly
improve the practicalities of patent litigation. The unitary patent will be avail-
able in 26 Member States (Spain and Croatia are not participating). At the pre-
sent time, 16 States have ratified the Agreement including the UK and France.
The Agreement cannot come into effect until Germany ratifies but there is a

Preface
vi
legal challenge in Germany and things are stalled until resolution of that chal-
lenge. Furthermore, the position of the UK is unclear because of Brexit.
There have been some interesting developments in patenting software inven-
tions including, in the United States, the adoption of the ‘Alice two-step test’
and its subsequent application in a number of cases. There remain difficul-
ties in reconciling UK decisions on computer-implemented inventions with
those before the Boards of Appeal at the European Patent Office (EPO). The
problem of precedent has stifled the UK courts’ ability to respond to evolving
reasoning at the Boards of Appeal, and although the English Court of Appeal
may more readily depart from its own previous decisions in this context, it is
not an easy matter to pin down a consistency in the jurisprudence at the EPO
that can reliably be followed. What is needed is a significant decision before
the Enlarged Board of Appeal at the EPO.
We are now seeing the patenting of artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. This
is an exciting new field, as with blockchain inventions, but these areas will
further test the scope of the exceptions from the meaning of invention as such,
especially in respect of mental steps and methods of doing business. AI and
blockchain inventions are emerging forms of information technology to be
watched together with their impact on intellectual property rights. These will
be studied in more detail in new editions of this book.
There is a new EU trade mark Regulation and a new EU trade mark Direc-
tive which brings greater harmonisation of trade mark law across the EU as
from January 2019. Section 10(6) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 which
appeared to apply to comparative advertising, being described by Jacob LJ as
an unnecessary distraction in an already complicated branch of law, will be
repealed during 2019. The law of passing off continues to be useful and has
been applied to a case on endorsement involving Rihanna and a case involving
the shape of taxis.
The old and difficult groundless threats provisions have been replaced by a
new unjustified threats regime for patents, trade marks, registered and unreg-
istered designs. This marks a significant improvement and brings a har-
monised approach, mutatis mutandis, for each of the relevant intellectual
property rights.
Writing this new edition has proved both challenging and rewarding. I thank
all who helped me in writing and publishing this new edition especially

Preface
vii
Leanne Barrett and the rest of the team at Bloomsbury. It has been my pleas-
ure to work with them. My wife, Lorraine, also deserves a mention for her
boundless patience and support.
I have attempted to state the law as at 1 January 2019.
David I Bainbridge
January 2019

viii

ix
Contents
Prefacev
Table of Statutes xv
Table of Statutory Instruments xxi
Table of European Legislation xxiii
Table of Cases xxxi
Chapter 1 Introduction to information technology and intellectual
property law 1
Introduction1
Justification for the legal protection of computer software 4
Forms of protection for computer software 8
Development of protection for computer software 8
Liability of information society service providers 11
Trade marks on the internet and passing off 12
Competition law 14
Jurisdiction15
Brexit16
Summary19
Chapter 2 Essentials of copyright law 20
Introduction20
Layout of this chapter 23
Subsistence of copyright 24
Original works of copyright 26
Other works of copyright 27
Authorship29
Ownership30
Duration35
Rights of the copyright owner and infringement 37
Remedies47
Secondary infringement 50
Criminal offences 51
The permitted acts 56

Contents
x
Public interest and other defences 62
Dealing with copyright 64
Moral rights 67
Rights related to copyright 69
Chapter 3 Copyright and computer programs 71
Introduction71
Layout of the chapter 72
Background and historical context 73
Subsistence of copyright in computer programs 77
Restricted acts and infringement of copyright in computer
programs100
Exceptions to the exclusive rights 121
Decompilation130
Special measures of protection 134
Presumptions140
Computer-generated works 142
Chapter 4 Non-textual copying of computer programs
and emulating the functions of a computer program 145
Introduction145
Layout of this chapter 147
Brief historical perspective 147
Non-textual copying in the UK 153
Emulating the functionality and other aspects of a computer
program158
Concluding remarks – emulating the functionality of a computer
program175
Chapter 5 Copyright in databases 178
Introduction178
Layout of this chapter 181
Database technology 182
What is a database for the purposes of the Directive? 184
Subsistence of copyright in a database 188
Authorship, ownership and duration 197
Dealing with copyright databases 199
Rights of the owner and infringement 200
Exceptions to the restricted acts 205
Moral rights 208

Contents
xi
Chapter 6 The sui generis database right 210
Introduction210
Layout of this chapter 212
Subsistence213
Ownership and dealing with the database right 226
Term of protection 227
Rights of database owners 230
Infringement238
Exceptions to the database right 242
Rights and obligations of lawful users 246
Remedies251
Licensing schemes 252
Circumvention of effective technological measures 253
Commission Report 2005 254
Evaluation and Fitness Check Roadmap 255
Chapter 7 Copyright in the information society 257
Introduction257
Layout of this chapter 260
Subsistence and exclusive rights 261
The Directive on copyright and related rights in the information
society272
Rights provided for by Directive 274
Exceptions and limitations 287
Protection of technological measures 300
Electronic rights management information 315
Remedies317
Injunctions against information society service providers 317
Digital Economy Act 2010 327
Cross-border portability of online content services 329
The proposed Directive on copyright in the Digital Single
Market334
Chapter 8 Design law, computer graphics and typefaces 345
Introduction345
Layout of this chapter 346
Copyright protection for computer graphics and typefaces 346
Trade mark protection 351

Contents
xii
Design protection 351
The Community design 355
The UK registered design 373
Implications of design law for computer graphics, images
displayed on websites and software fonts 374
Brexit and design law 375
Chapter 9 Semiconductor topography right 376
Introduction376
Layout of this chapter 377
Background378
The Directive on the legal protection of topographies
of semiconductor products 383
Extension of protection to nationals of third countries 390
Experiences of semiconductor topography protection 391
The 2018 draft Regulations 392
Chapter 10 Confidential information, trade secrets
and information technology 393
Introduction393
Layout of this chapter 395
Basic requirements for an action in breach of confidence 395
Employees401
Consultants and others 406
Covenants in restraint of trade 407
Public interest defence 410
Remedies411
Human rights and the impact on the action of breach
of confidence 417
Trade secrets law 424
Data protection law 435
Freedom of information 444
Chapter 11 Essentials of patent law 447
Introduction447
Layout of this chapter 449
Requirements for the grant of a patent 450
Entitlement to a patent 458
Dealing with patents 462

Contents
xiii
Infringement and remedies 468
Defences469
Formalities for the grant of a patent 475
The unitary patent and Unified Patent Court 478
Chapter 12 Patents and computer-implemented inventions 484
Introduction484
Layout of this chapter 486
What is a computer-implemented invention? 487
Status of decisions of the Boards of Appeal at the EPO 488
Patentability under the Patents Act 1949 489
Position of software patents in the United States 490
Development of case law on computer-implemented inventions
at the EPO 496
The position in the UK 511
Sufficiency and computer-implemented inventions 532
Patents and artificial intelligence 533
Chapter 13 Essentials of trade mark law and the law
of passing off 536
Introduction536
Layout of this chapter 539
Registered trade marks 540
Limitations on the effects of a trade mark 553
Licensing and dealing in trade marks 556
Requirement that trade mark must be used 557
Revocation and invalidity 558
Remedies558
Registration of a national trade mark 564
The EU trade mark 566
Passing off 568
Malicious falsehood 573
Chapter 14 Trade marks, goodwill and the internet 575
Introduction575
Layout of this chapter 576
Trade marks, websites and the internet 577
Passing off and the internet 610
Malicious falsehood and online statements 622

Contents
xiv
Chapter 15 Competition law 627
Introduction627
Layout of this chapter 628
Restrictive trade agreements 629
Abuses of a dominant position 633
EU Antitrust Damages Directive 644
Exhaustion of rights 647
Freedom to provide services 651
Chapter 16 Jurisdiction and intellectual property
aspects of information technology 654
Introduction654
Layout of this chapter 655
Development of rules on jurisdiction 656
The ‘Brussels Regulation’ and the basic rules 658
Copyright and related rights 665
Patents669
Jurisdiction, trade marks and websites 672
Glossary 679
Index 689

xv
Communications Act 2003
s 124A–124N�� 7.150
Competition Act 1998�� 1.27;
15.38, 15.50
s 2�� 15.1
s 18�� 15.1, 15.24
Copyright Act 1911
s 1(1)�� 3.12, 3.30
s 1(2)�� 3.75
s 15�� 6.78
Copyright Act 1956�� 3.8; 5.1
s 48(1)�� 5.1
Copyright (Computer Software)
Amendment Act 1985�� 3.8, 3.10
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988�� 2.1, 2.6, 2.14, 2.42, 2.48,
2.87, 2.118; 3.8, 3.10, 3.35,
3.36, 3.49, 3.51, 3.68, 3.71,
3.72, 3.81, 3.98, 3.124,
3.135, 3.160, 3.172, 3.174,
3.178; 5.1, 5.37, 5.53,
5.67, 5.68; 6.3, 6.47,
6.96; 7.4, 7.21, 7.24,
7.59, 7.61, 7.83, 7.85;
8.12; 9.43
Pt 1 (ss 1–179)�� 7.114
s 1�� 7.11
s 1(1)�� 2.10
s 3�� 2.13
s 3(1)�� 3.20; 4.48; 5.24; 7.11
s 3(1)(a)�� 7.11
s 3(2)�� 2.14
s 3A�� 2.13; 3.50; 5.11
s 3A(1)�� 7.11
s 3A(2)�� 3.31; 5.24, 5.25
s 4�� 2.13, 2.15; 8.10
s 4 (1)�� 7.14
s 4(2)�� 7.14, 7.16
s 5A�� 2.16
s 5B�� 2.17
s 5B(1)�� 7.15
s 6�� 7.32
s 7�� 7.32
s 8(1)�� 7.17
Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988 – contd
s 9�� 2.21; 5.44
s 9(2)(c)�� 7.17
s 9(3)�� 3.175, 3.177; 5.37
s 10�� 5.44
s 10A�� 2.36
s 11�� 2.33; 5.46
s 11(1)�� 2.25
s 12�� 2.34; 5.47
s 12(7)�� 3.175
s 13, 13A�� 2.34
s 13B�� 2.34, 2.36
s 13B(2)�� 2.37
s 15�� 7.17
s 14–15A�� 2.34
s 16(1)�� 2.40; 3.98
s 16(2)�� 7.54
s 16(3)�� 2.42; 3.75; 7.8, 7.33
s 17�� 2.46, 2.47; 7.33
s 17(2)�� 7.19
s 17(4)�� 7.16
s 17(5)�� 7.19
s 17 (6)�� 7.63
s 18�� 2.46, 2.54; 3.107; 7.59
s 18(2)�� 7.56
s 18A�� 2.56; 3.109
s 19�� 2.46; 3.69
s 20�� 2.46, 2.61; 3.106,
3.107; 7.47, 7.54
s 20(2)�� 7.25
s 21�� 2.46, 2.63; 3.61, 3.96
s 21(3)�� 3.96
s 21(3)(ab)�� 3.96
s 21(3)(ac)�� 5.55
s 21(4)�� 3.96, 3.97
s 22�� 3.160
s 23�� 2.75; 3.160, 3.161
s 23(1)(d)�� 3.160
s 24�� 2.75
s 28A�� 2.47, 2.90; 5.67;
7.17, 7.62, 7.63
s 28B�� 2.89; 7.78
s 29(1), (1C)�� 6.75
Table of Statutes

Table of Statutes
xvi
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
1988 – contd
s 29A�� 7.84
s 30A�� 2.90; 7.85
s 31A�� 2.99; 5.67
s 31B�� 2.99; 5.67
s 31C–31F�� 2.99
s 36A�� 2.56
s 40A�� 2.56; 2.59
s 44A�� 6.74, 6.78
s 45�� 5.68; 6.76
s 46–50�� 6.76
s 50A�� 6.82; 10.17
s 50B�� 3.150; 6.82; 15.30
s 50B(1)�� 3.150
s 50BA�� 3.140; 6.82; 7.4
s 50C�� 3.125; 6.82
s 50D�� 5.59, 5.67
s 54�� 2.15; 8.10
s 55�� 2.15
s 56�� 3.121, 3.122, 3.138; 7.56
s 56(3)�� 3.122
s 57�� 6.80
s 65�� 7.85
s 70�� 7.82
s 71�� 7.82
s 72�� 7.82, 7.85
s 72(1)�� 7.41, 7.67
s 72(1A)�� 7.41
s 72(1B)�� 7.85
s 77�� 2.120; 7.29
s 80�� 2.120
s 85�� 5.69
s 90�� 2.112; 5.48; 6.37, 6.40
s 90(3)�� 6.28
s 91�� 5.48; 6.37, 6.40
s 92�� 2.116; 5.48, 5.50;
6.37, 6.40
s 92(5)�� 7.106
s 93�� 6.37, 6.38, 6.40
s 96�� 3.158; 6.88, 6.94
s 96(2)�� 3.74
s 97�� 6.88, 6.94
s 97(1)�� 7.116
s 97(2)�� 3.158
s 97A�� 1.20; 6.94; 7.127, 7.128,
7.130, 7.133, 7.134, 7.139,
7.143, 7.144, 7.147, 7.188;
14.74, 14.75
s 98�� 6.88, 6.94, 6.96
s 99, 100�� 6.88, 6.94
Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988 – contd
s 101�� 5.50; 6.88
s 101(3)�� 3.167
s 101A�� 2.117; 5.50; 6.88
s 102�� 2.117; 6.88, 6.94
s 104�� 3.167, 3.172; 7.99
s 104(2)�� 3.172
s 105�� 3.167, 3.173
s 106�� 3.167
s 107�� 1.12; 2.77, 2.85,
2.86; 3.160; 7.102
s 107(1)(e)�� 2.85
s 107(2A)�� 2.80
s 107(4A)�� 2.80, 2.83
s 111�� 2.72
s 113, 114�� 6.94
s 116A–116D�� 2.118
s 144�� 6.96
s 153�� 2.12
s 154�� 2.11, 2.12
s 155, 156�� 2.12
s 163�� 2.39
s 163(1)�� 2.33
s 164�� 2.39
s 164(1)�� 2.33
s 165–166A�� 2.39
s 168(1)�� 2.33
s 171(1)(e)�� 10.27
s 173�� 6.40
s 173(2)�� 6.40
s 175(4)�� 7.17
s 178�� 2.14; 3.175;
5.37; 7.19
s 180(2)�� 10.14
s 182(1A)�� 7.63
s 182A�� 7.33
s 182CA�� 7.41
s 191�� 2.38
s 192(2)�� 2.38
s 205C–205H�� 5.51
Pt III (ss 213–264)�� 9.1
s 220(a), (b)�� 9.43
s 226(2)�� 9.34
s 237�� 9.39
s 296�� 3.162, 3.163, 3.164,
3.168; 7.87, 7.115; 15.49
s 296(1)(c)�� 3.140
s 296(2A)�� 7.87
s 296A�� 3.137
s 296A(c)�� 7.4

Table of Statutes
xvii
Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988 – contd
s 296ZA�� 6.100; 7.98, 7.101,
7.115; 15.49
s 296ZB�� 6.100, 7.102,
7.105, 7.107; 15.49
s 296ZB(1)�� 7.102
s 296ZB(1)(c)(i)�� 7.104
s 296ZB(2)�� 7.103
s 296ZB(4)�� 7.111
s 296ZB(5)�� 7.106
s 296ZC�� 6.100; 15.49
s 296ZD�� 6.100; 7.101,
7.112, 7.114; 15.49
s 296ZD(1)(b)(ii)�� 7.114
s 296ZD(7)�� 7.116
s 296ZE�� 6.100; 7.119; 15.49
s 296ZE(2)�� 7.117
s 296ZE(3)�� 7.119
s 296ZE(9)�� 7.120
s 296ZF�� 6.100; 7.104; 15.49
s 296ZG�� 6.92; 7.124
s 297(1)�� 15.54
s 298�� 15.54
Sch ZA1�� 2.93
Sch 5A�� 7.118
Copyright etc and Trade Marks
(Offences and Enforcement)
Act 2002�� 2.77
Data Protection Act 1998�� 10.94
Data Protection At 2018�� 10.5,
10.92, 10.110, 10.111
s 9�� 10.102
Defamation Act 1996
s 1�� 14.4
Defamation Act 2013�� 14.110,
14.113
s 5�� 14.4, 14.113, 14.115
s 8�� 14.110
Digital Economy Act 2010�� 1.21;
7.6, 7.150, 7.154
s 3–18�� 7.150
Digital Economy Act 2017�� 2.81
s 31�� 2.59
s 42(2)�� 2.78
Enterprise Act 2002�� 1.27
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Act 2013�� 2.118
s 77�� 2.118
European Communities Act 1972
s 2(2)�� 2.1
Fraud Act 2006
s 6(1)�� 2.85
s 8(1)�� 2.87
Freedom of Information Act
2000�� 7.121; 10.110,
10.111, 10.112,
10.113, 10.115
s 1�� 7.121
s 43�� 10.113
Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002�� 10.110
Human Rights Act 1998�� 10.5
s 2–4�� 10.52
Intellectual Property Act 2014�� 2.11;
8.66; 9.29
Intellectual Property (Unjustified
Threats) Act 2017�� 11.50; 13.45
s 6�� 8.53
Legal Deposit Libraries Act
2003�� 6.74, 6.78, 6.79
s 10(5)�� 6.78
Limitation Act 1980�� 10.90
s 4A�� 14.110
Patents Act 1949�� 11.17; 12.5, 12.12
Patents Act 1977�� 11.3, 11.5, 11.17,
11.21, 11.24, 11.48,
11.60; 12.1, 12.2,
12.15, 12.110
s 1(2)�� 1.17; 12.2, 12.9,
12.64, 12.67, 12.97
s 1(2)(c)�� 12.71
s 7(2), (3)�� 11.24
s 14(3)�� 11.5, 11.9; 12.110
s 14(5)�� 12.110
s 21�� 11.60
s 23�� 11.59
s 33(1)�� 11.33
s 39�� 11.24, 11.25
s 39(2)�� 11.25
s 40�� 11.28
s 40(1)�� 11.26
s 46, 47�� 11.31
s 60�� 11.41, 11.52; 16.33
s 60(1)�� 11.33, 11.41
s 60(1)(a)–(c)�� 11.41
s 60(2)�� 11.41; 16.31,
16.32, 16.33
s 60(5)�� 11.43
s 61�� 11.42
s 62�� 11.42
s 62(1)�� 10.45

Table of Statutes
xviii
Patents Act 1977 – contd
s 64�� 11.45
s 68�� 11.33
s 70, 70A–70F�� 11.50
s 91(1)(c)�� 12.10
s 101(1)�� 12.12
Patents and Designs Act 1907�� 12.108
Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks
Act 1883
s 32�� 11.50
Prescription and Limitation
(Scotland) Act 1973�� 10.90
Private International Law
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995
s 10�� 16.24
s 11(1)�� 16.4
Public Lending Right Act 1979�� 2.59
Registered Designs Act 1949�� 3.94;
8.17, 8.20, 8.22,
8.65, 8.71, 8.76
s 5�� 8.65
s 24B�� 8.51
s 33–35�� 8.65
s 35ZA�� 8.66, 8.69
s 35ZB–35ZD�� 8.70
Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act 2000
s 81�� 7.110
Senior Courts Act 1981
s 37(1)�� 14.76
s 72�� 7.115; 10.50
Statute of Anne 1710�� 2.1, 2.34
Statute of Monopolies 1623�� 11.1; 12.12
s 6�� 11.1
s 6(a)�� 12.12
Supreme Court Act 1981 see Senior
Courts Act 1981
Trade Descriptions Act 1968�� 14.92
Trade Marks Act 1938�� 13.3, 13.23
s 4(1)�� 13.3
Trade Marks Act 1994�� 13.3, 13.7,
13.11, 13.14, 13.16,
13.20, 13.23,
13.24, 13.56
s 2(2)�� 13.71
s 4(4)�� 13.71
s 6A�� 13.39
s 10(2), (3)�� 14.47
Trade Marks Act 1994 – contd
s 10(4)�� 13.24
s 10(6)�� 13.28
s 14(2)�� 13.43
s 15, 16�� 13.43
s 21�� 13.45
s 21A�� 13.45, 13.46
s 21B�� 13.45, 13.47
s 21C�� 13.45, 13.48
s 21D�� 13.45, 13.51
s 21E, 21F�� 13.45
s 25�� 13.37
s 28(4)�� 13.36
s 32(3)�� 13.14, 13.16
s 46(1)(c)�� 13.27
s 47�� 13.11, 13.39
s 48�� 13.33
s 56�� 13.63
s 92�� 13.52
s 92(1)�� 13.53
s 103(1)�� 13.8
Sch 3
para 2(1)�� 13.23
AUSTRALIA
Copyright Act 1968�� 3.9
FRANCE
Intellectual Property Code (Law 92-597)
L.134-1–L.134-9�� 7.49
JAMAICA
Copyright Act (Act No 5 of 1993)
s 22(1)�� 2.32
SINGAPORE
Copyright Act 1987
s 26�� 3.101
SWEDEN
Copyright Act�� 2.111
UNITED STATES
Constitution
s 8�� 12.17
Copyright Act 1976�� 3.9,
3.60; 7.136; 9.11
§ 101�� 3.9
§ 102(b)�� 4.12, 4.14, 4.17
§ 512�� 7.136, 7.137
§ 512(i)(1)(A)�� 7.136
Ch 9 (§§ 901–914)�� 9.11
§ 906(a)�� 9.13
§ 1201–1205�� 7.122

Table of Statutes
xix
Copyright Act 1980�� 3.9
Digital Millennium Copyright
Act 1998�� 7.122, 7.136
Lanham (Trademark) Act 1946
§ 32(1)�� 14.20
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
2011�� 11.4
Online Copyright Infringement
Liability Limitation Act 1998�� 7.136
Patents Act 1952�� 11.4; 12.16
§ 101�� 12.16, 12.17, 12.24,
12.29, 12.30
§ 273(b)(1)�� 12.21
Semiconductor Protection Chip
Act 1984�� 9.8, 9.11,
9.12, 9.41

xx

xxi
Claims in respect of Loss or Damage
arising from Competition
Infringements (Competition
Act 1998 and Other Enactments
(Amendment)) Regulations
2017, SI 2017/385�� 15.38
Collective Management of Copy-
right (EU Directive) Regula -
tions 2016, SI 2016/221�� 7.192
Consumer Protection from Unfair
Trading Regulations 2008,
SI 2008/1277�� 14.92
Copyright and Performances
(Application to Other
Countries) Order 2016,
SI 2016/1219�� 2.12; 6.27
Copyright and Related Rights
Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2967
reg 16�� 2.127; 7.2
Copyright and Related Rights
Regulations 2003, SI 2003/
24982.80;�� 3.106,
3.140, 3.162, 3.164;
6.88; 7.4, 7.17, 7.24,
7.32, 7.83
Copyright and Rights in Databases
Regulations 1997, SI 1997/
3032�� 6.3,
6.4, 6.24, 6.68
Pt III (regs 12–25)�� 6.3
reg 12(1)�� 6.24
reg 12(2)�� 6.89
reg 12(5)�� 6.49
reg 14�� 6.29
reg 14(1)�� 6.29
reg 14(2)�� 6.33, 6.89
reg 14(3), (4), (4A)�� 6.89
reg 14(5)�� 6.31
reg 14(6)�� 6.36
reg 15�� 6.36
reg 16(2)�� 6.68
reg 17(1)�� 6.41
reg 18�� 6.26
reg 18(3)�� 6.35
reg 19�� 6.83
Copyright and Rights in Databases
Regulations 1997, SI 1997/3032
– contd
reg 20(1)�� 6.75
reg 20A�� 6.79
reg 21�� 6.80
reg 22�� 6.43; 7.100
reg 22(3)�� 6.90
reg 23�� 6.88, 6.94
Sch 1�� 6.76
Sch 2�� 6.97
Copyright and Rights in Perfor-
mances (Certain Permitted
Uses of Orphan Works) Regu-
lations 2014, SI 2014/2861�� 2.93
Copyright and Rights in Perfor-
mances (Dis ability) Regula-
tions 2014, SI 2014/1384�� 7.83
Copyright and Rights in
Performances (Personal Copies
for Private Use) Regulations
2014, SI 2014/2361�� 2.89
reg 3�� 7.78
Copyright and Rights in
Performances (Quotation and
Parody) Regulations 2014, SI
2014/2356�� 7.85
Copyright (Computer Programs)
Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3233� 3.96
reg 10�� 7.87
Copyright (Free Public Showing or
Playing) (Amendment) Regula-
tions 2016, SI 2016/565�� 7.41
Design Right (Semiconductor
Topographies) (Amendment)
(EU Exit) Regulations 2018,
SI 2018/1052�� 9.6, 9.43
Design Right (Semiconductor
Topographies) (Amendment)
Regulations 2006, SI 2006/
1833�� 9.1
Design Right (Semiconductor
Topographies) Regulations
1989, SI 1989/1100�� 9.1, 9.43
reg 4�� 9.43
Table of Statutory Instruments

Table of Statutory Instruments
xxii
Duration of Copyright and Rights in
Performances Regulations 1995,
SI 1995/3297�� 5.47
Electronic Commerce (EC Directive)
Regulations 2002, SI 2002/
2013�� 7.64; 14.115
reg 2�� 7.134
reg 6(1)(c)�� 7.130
reg 17, 18�� 1.20
reg 19�� 1.20; 14.113
reg 20�� 1.20
Environmental Information
Regulations 2004, SI 2004/
3391�� 10.115
Intellectual Property (Enforcement
etc) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/
1028�� 2.67; 3.158; 6.95; 13.43
reg 3�� 6.95
Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003
(Commencement) Order 2004,
SI 2004/130�� 6.79
Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential
Modifications) (No 1) Order
1999, SI 1999/1042�� 6.89
Semiconductor Products (Protec-
tion of Topography) Regula-
tions 1987, SI 1987/1497�� 9.1
Trade Marks Regulations 2018,
SI 2018/825�� 13.7
reg 5�� 13.22
Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc)
Regulations 2018, SI 2018/
597�� 10.6,
10.72, 10.90

xxiii
CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES
Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the Europe Union (Nice, 7
December 2000)�� 7.132,
7.190; 10.49
art 8�� 7.132; 10.93
art 8(1)�� 10.93
art 11�� 7.140, 7.189
art 16�� 7.189
art 17�� 10.54
Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Funda
mental Freedoms (Rome,
4 November 1950)�� 2.110; 7.55,
7.106, 7.132; 10.5, 10.7,
10.49, 10.52, 10.53,
10.55, 10.56
art 6(1)�� 10.104
art 6(2)�� 13.52
art 8�� 10.39, 10.53, 10.57, 10.64,
10.66, 10.83, 10.93; 14.114
art 10�� 7.51; 10.53,
10.57, 10.64, 10.66
10.84, 10.104; 14.114
art 10(1)�� 7.51
art 10(2)�� 2.111; 7.51
art 11�� 7.132; 10.84
art 13–19�� 10.105
Protocol 1
art 1��2.111; 7.51; 10.54
Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property (Paris,
20 March 1883)
art 1�� 15.2
art 6�� 13.12, 13.19, 13.58, 13.63
art 6(3)�� 13.14
Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works
(Berne, 9 September 1886)�� 2.3,
2.34, 2.113; 3.11, 3.12,
3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16,
3.30, 3.51, 3.71, 3.155;
4.53; 5.44, 5.69, 5.70;
6.27; 7.12, 7.15, 7.117,
7.184; 16.1
Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works
(Berne, 9 September 1886) – contd
art 2�� 2.4; 7.51
art 2(1)�� 3.11
art 2(3)�� 3.12
art 2(5)�� 2.12; 3.12, 3.51; 7.11
art 2(8)�� 7.184
art 3, 4�� 2.4; 7.51
art 5�� 2.4; 7.51; 16.22
art 5(2)�� 7.49, 7.50
art 6�� 2.4; 3.13; 5.69; 7.51
art 7, 8�� 2.4; 7.51
art 9�� 2.4; 7.51
art 9(1)�� 7.51
art 9(2)�� 3.13, 3.155; 7.51, 7.69, 7.77
art 10–21�� 2.4; 7.51
Convention for the Protection of
Performers, Producers of
Phonograms and Broadcasting
Organisations (Rome,
26 October 1961)�� 3.15
art 13(d)�� 7.40
Convention on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments
in Civil and Commercial
Matters (Brussels, 21 May
1968)�� 16.6, 16.23, 16.24
art 6(1)�� 16.23
art 8(1)�� 16.23
Convention on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments
in Civil and Commercial
Matters (Lugano, 30 October
2007)�� 16.2, 16.5, 16.7
Convention on the Grant of
European Patents (Munich,
5 October 1973) �� 1.35; 3.97; 4.66;
11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6,
11.21, 11.48, 11.59, 11.65,
11.67, 11.68; 12.1, 12.2, 12.6,
12.10, 12.12, 12.19, 12.31,
12.32, 12.41, 12.55, 12.56, 12.57,
12.63, 12.85, 12.93
art 52�� 12.9, 12.12, 12.31, 12.97
Table of European Legislation

Table of European Legislation
xxiv
Convention on the Grant of
European Patents (Munich,
5 October 1973) – contd
art 52(1)�� 11.10; 12.95
art 52(2)�� 1.17; 11.10, 11.21,
11.22, 11.23; 12.2, 12.30,
12.40, 12.42, 12.44, 12.51,
12.53, 12.57, 12.60,
12.61, 12.64, 12.71,
12.74, 12.82, 12.86
art 52(2)(c)�� 12.36, 12.54
art 52(3)�� 1.17; 11.21; 12.2,
12.30, 12.42, 12.54, 12.57,
12.64, 12.71, 12.82
art 53�� 11.23
art 54(1)–(3)�� 11.11
art 55�� 11.12
art 56�� 11.15, 11.16;
12.60, 12.61
art 57�� 11.18
art 60�� 11.24
art 64�� 11.41
art 96�� 11.20
art 83�� 11.9; 12.110
art 84�� 12.110
art 112(1)(b)�� 12.55
Convention on the Law of Treaties
(Vienna, 23 May 1969)
art 31�� 12.85
art 31(1)�� 12.85
Patent Cooperation Treaty
(Washington, 19 June
1970)�� 11.3, 11.59, 11.61
Treaty Establishing the European
Economic Community (Rome,
25 March 1957)
art 81�� 15.1, 15.9, 15.36
art 82�� 3.136; 15.1, 15.36
art 234�� 3.24, 3.177; 6.8
Treaty on Intellectual Property in
Respect of Integrated Circuits
(Washington, 26 May 1989)�� 9.4,
9.9, 9.11, 9.40
art 2�� 9.9
art 36�� 9.10
Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (Rome,
25 March 1957)�� 11.49; 15.2, 15.56
art 2�� 15.14
art 3(1)�� 15.2
art 4, 5�� 15.14
Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (Rome,
25 March 1957) – contd
art 26(2)�� 15.2
art 34, 35�� 11.48; 15.2, 15.45, 15.52
art 36�� 11.48; 15.2, 15.45, 15.52
art 56�� 7.156; 15.2, 15.53, 15.55
art 57�� 7.156
art 101�� 5.6; 11.38, 11.49;
15.1, 15.9, 15.36, 15.41
art 101(1)�� 15.5, 15.7, 15.9, 15.10,
15.12, 15.13, 15.14
art 101(2)�� 15.6
art 101(3)�� 15.12, 15.13, 15.14
art 102�� 3.136, 3.157; 5.6;
11.36, 11.38, 11.49;
15.1, 15.9, 15.15,
15.16, 15.17, 15.18,
15.20, 15.21, 15.23,
15.24, 15.27, 15.28,
15.32, 15.34, 15.36,
15.24, 15.25 ,15.34,
15.41,15.42, 15.47
art 267�� 3.24; 6.8; 15.54
art 269�� 3.177
art 345�� 15.2
Treaty to Facilitate Access to
Published Works for Persons
who are Blind, Visually
Impaired, or Otherwise Print
Disabled (Marrakesh, 27 June
2013)�� 2.100
WIPO Copyright Treaty (Geneva,
20 December 1996)�� 2.3, 2.57;
3.14, 3.15, 3.80,
3.105, 3.106, 3.107,
3.139; 5.22; 7.1,
7.51, 7.122
art 2�� 3.14, 3.81; 4.4,
4.54; 5.52
art 3�� 3.81
art 3(1)�� 5.23
art 4�� 3.14, 3.105
art 5�� 5.22
art 6�� 2.57; 3.109
art 7�� 2.57; 3.109
art 10(2)�� 3.80
WIPO Performances and
Phonograms Treaty 1996
(Geneva, 20 December
1996)�� 2.3; 3.15; 7.1

Table of European Legislation
xxv
DIRECTIVES
Dir 87/54/EEC�� 1.7; 9.1, 9.2,
9.3, 9.6, 9.13, 9.33
art 1(1)�� 9.21
art 2�� 9.34
art 2(2)�� 9.36
art 3(2)(a), (b)�� 9.29
art 4�� 9.23, 9.30
art 5(1)�� 9.34
art 5(2)–(4)�� 9.36
art 7(1)�� 9.31
art 8�� 9.27
art 10�� 9.28
Dir 89/104/EEC�� 1.19; 13.3, 13.23
Dir 90/313/EEC�� 10.115
Dir 91/250/EEC �� 3.5, 3.10, 3.21,
3.31, 3.70, 3.125, 3.131,
3.162; 5.4; 7.3, 7.29
art 3(3)�� 3.113
Dir 92/100/EEC�� 7.3
Dir 93/83/EEC�� 7.3, 7.41
art 2�� 7.45
Dir 93/98/EEC�� 2.34, 2.127; 7.3
Dir 95/46/EC�� 7.164, 7.193;
10.128
Dir 96/9/EC�� 3.36; 5.1, 5.2,
5.4, 5.58; 6.2, 6.3, 6.6,
6.17, 6.25, 6.82, 6.102,
6.103, 6.104, 6.105, 6.106;
7.3, 7.169, 7.172, 7.176
art 1�� 6.66
art 1(2)�� 4.48; 5.11, 5.16,
5.30, 5.38, 5.39;
6.7, 6.8
art 1(3)�� 5.4, 5.13, 5.58
art 2�� 5.4, 5.56, 5.57
art 3(1)�� 3.31; 5.30, 5.36
art 3(2)�� 5.38
art 4�� 5.43
art 4(3)�� 5.44
art 5�� 5.51, 5.61, 5.63
art 5(a)�� 7.169
art 6�� 5.59, 5.60, 5.65
art 6(1)�� 5.61, 5.63; 6.82
art 6(2)�� 5.64, 5.66
art 6(3)�� 5.60, 5.65
art 7�� 6.60
art 7(1)�� 6.11, 6.18, 6.48,
6.61; 7.169
art 7(2)�� 6.48, 6.49
art 7(2)(b)�� 6.56
Dir 96/9/EC – contd
art 7(3)�� 6.37
art 7(4)�� 6.66
art 7(5)�� 6.68
art 8(1), (2)�� 6.82
art 8(3)�� 6.82, 6.84, 6.85
art 10�� 6.45
art 10(1), (2)�� 6.41
art 10(3)�� 6.42
art 11�� 6.11, 6.25, 6.26
art 12(1)�� 6.11
art 13�� 5.6
art 14(2)�� 5.24; 6.47
art 14(3), (5)�� 6.46
art 15�� 5.63; 6.82
art 16(1)�� 6.46
art 16(3)�� 6.101
Recital 1�� 5.24
Recital 2�� 5.24
Recital 3�� 5.24
Recital 4�� 5.24
Recital 7�� 6.24
Recital 12�� 5.2
Recital 14�� 5.11
Recital 15�� 5.3, 5.11, 5.30
Recital 17�� 5.12, 5.39; 6.7
Recital 19�� 5.12; 6.7
Recital 20�� 5.41, 5.52
Recital 21�� 5.19
Recital 23�� 5.58
Recital 34�� 6.84
Recital 38�� 6.52
Recital 40�� 6.24, 6.29
Recital 41�� 6.28
Recital 42�� 6.64
Recital 43�� 6.49
Recital 45�� 6.8
Recital 46�� 6.8
Recital 50�� 6.74
Recital 53�� 6.43, 6.90
Recital 54�� 6.43, 6.90
Recital 55�� 6.42
Recital 58�� 5.3, 5.57
Dir 98/34/EC�� 7.154
Dir 98/48/EC�� 7.154; 10.48,
10.50; 13.43
art 4(c)�� 14.9
art 13�� 13.43
Dir 98/71/EC�� 1.18
Dir 2010/13/EU�� 7.156
art 1�� 7.156

Table of European Legislation
xxvi
Dir 2000/31/EC�� 1.20; 7.64,
7.130, 7.131, 7.187;
14.81, 14.113, 14.115
art 11�� 14.29
art 12, 13�� 7.145, 7.187;
14.9
art 14�� 7.145, 7.187; 14.9,
14.51, 14.54
art 14(1)�� 14.28
art 15(2)�� 7.150
Dir 2001/29/EC�� 1.16; 2.3,
2.100, 2.126; 3.2, 3.104;
6.49; 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
7.4, 7.5, 7.28, 7.30,
7.31, 7.64, 7.78,
7.88, 7.172, 7.176,
7.193; 8.22; 15.46; 16.22
art 2�� 7.32, 7.77, 7.127,
7.169, 7.170,
7.175, 7.180
art 2(a)�� 4.60; 7.50
art 3�� 3.112; 7.43, 7.127
art 3(1)�� 7.35, 7.50, 7.76,
7.157, 7.158, 7.169
art 3(2)�� 7.35, 7.169
art 3(3)�� 6.49; 7.58
art 4�� 7.2, 7.59, 7.77,
7.127, 7.158
art 4(2)�� 6.49
art 5�� 2.47; 3.2; 5.53;
7.28, 7.34, 7.49, 7.57,
7.61, 7.86, 7.127, 7.159,
7.164, 7.166, 7.175, 7.180
art 5(1)�� 2.90, 2.116; 7.62,
7.63, 7.65, 7.67,
7.68, 7.69, 7.71,
7.73, 7.77
art 5(2)�� 7.62, 7.77, 7.78
art 5(2)(b)�� 2.89
art 5(3)�� 7.62, 7.77, 7.83
art 5(3)(a)�� 7.84
art 5(3)(b)�� 7.84
art 5(3)(k)�� 2.91; 7.85, 7.181
art 5(3)(l)�� 7.85
art 5(3)(m)�� 7.85
art 5(4)�� 7.62, 7.77
art 5(5)�� 7.65, 7.67, 7.69,
7.72, 7.76, 7.86,
7.127, 7.162, 7.180
art 6�� 7.89, 7.93
art 6(1)�� 7.94; 16.24
Dir 2001/29/EC – contd
art 6(2)�� 7.95, 7.112
art 6(3)�� 7.90
art 6(4)�� 7.96
art 7�� 7.163, 7.178, 7.180
art 7(1)(c)�� 7.87
art 8�� 7.97, 7.127,
7.178, 7.180
art 8(1)�� 7.127
art 8(3)�� 7.129, 7.130,
7.188; 14.74, 14.75
art 9�� 7.165
art 10�� 7.166, 7.179
art 11�� 7.3, 7.180
art 11(1)�� 7.169
art 12�� 7.181
art 13(1)�� 7.185
art 14�� 7.191
Recital 5�� 7.74
Recital 9�� 7.39
Recital 10�� 7.39
Recital 23�� 7.35, 7.39
Recital 25�� 7.28
Recital 27�� 7.28
Recital 29�� 6.49; 7.28
Recital 21�� 7.182
Recital 33�� 7.63
Recital 48�� 7.101
Dir 2002/20/EC
art 12�� 7.154
Dir 2002/21/EC�� 7.156
art 2(a)�� 7.156
Dir 2002/58/EC�� 7.164, 7.193
Dir 2003/4/EC�� 10.115
Dir 2004/48/EC�� 2.67, 2.74;
3.158; 7.127; 14.29
art 2(2)�� 3.158
art 11�� 7.129; 14.74, 14.75, 14.76
art 13�� 2.68
Recital 23�� 14.79
Dir 2005/29/EC�� 14.92
Dir 2006/114/EC�� 13.24,
13.29; 14.33
art 4�� 13.29
art 4(1)(h)�� 14.33
art 4(4)(a)�� 14.35
Dir 2006/115/EC�� 3.109; 7.3, 7.40
art 4�� 3.110
art 6�� 2.57
art 8(2)�� 7.34
art (3)�� 7.40

Table of European Legislation
xxvii
Dir 2006/116/EC�� 2.34, 2.127;
5.38; 7.3
art 1(7)�� 2.36
art 4�� 7.89
Recital 18�� 2.36
Recital 19�� 2.36
Dir 2008/95/EC�� 1.19; 13.3
art 2�� 13.9, 13.10, 13.11
art 3(1)(b)–(d)�� 13.41
art 4�� 13.12
art 4(1)�� 13.12
art 4(1)(a)�� 13.12
art 4(1)(b)–(d)�� 13.36
art 4(2)�� 13.14
art 5�� 13.17
art 5(2)�� 1.22; 14.32, 14.35,
14.53, 14.54, 14.64
art 5(2)(d)�� 13.63
art 7�� 13.13
art 9�� 14.57
art 10�� 13.24
art 12�� 13.27
art 13�� 13.39
art 14�� 13.31
art 14(2)�� 13.32
art 17�� 13.39
art 20�� 13.27
art 25(3)�� 13.36
art 25(5)�� 13.27
Dir 2009/24/EC�� 3.5, 3.10,
3.15, 3.20, 3.23, 3.24,
3.31, 3.34, 3.69, 3.70,
3.71, 3.79, 3.91, 3.97,
3.104, 3.105, 3.110,
3.139, 3.155; 4.4,
4.9, 4.15, 4.20, 4.38,
4.39, 4.44, 4.45; 6.1;
7.3, 7.176; 15.30
art 1(1)�� 3.16, 3.19,
3.28; 4.53
art 1(2)�� 3.18, 3.45, 3.91,
3.139; 4.4, 4.20,
4.37, 4.53
art 1(3)�� 3.30, 3.31, 3.34
art 3�� 3.104
art 4�� 3.67, 3.104
art 4(1)(a)�� 3.81, 3.125; 4.38; 5.58
art 4(1)(b)�� 3.95, 3.125, 3.126
art 4(1)(c)�� 3.103, 3.113
art 4(2)�� 3.114, 3.115, 3.116,
3.121, 3.128, 3.150
Dir 2009/24/EC – contd
art 5�� 3.67, 3.81, 3.124
art 5(1)�� 3.115, 3.119, 3.124,
3.125, 3.127, 3.128,
3.130, 3.131, 3.132,
3.133; 4.58
art 5(2)�� 3.124, 3.137
art 5(3)�� 3.124, 3.137, 3.140,
3.145; 4.56, 4.57,
4.58, 4.62
art 6�� 3.67, 3.105, 3.124,
3.137, 3.150, 3.151,
3.152; 4.62
art 6(1)�� 3.151
art 6(1)(a)–(c)�� 3.152
art 6(2)�� 3.153
art 6(2)(c)�� 3.79
art 6(3)�� 3.154
art 7�� 3.159
art 7(1)�� 3.163
art 7(1)(a)�� 3.160
art 7(1)(c)�� 7.29
art 7(2), (3)�� 3.159
art 8�� 3.71, 3.91, 3.105,
3.137, 3.140, 3.152;
4.56, 4.62
art 9�� 3.71
art 11�� 3.71
art 11(1)�� 7.172
Recital 1�� 6.1
Recital 2�� 6.1
Recital 3�� 6.1
Recital 7�� 3.16, 3.117
Recital 8�� 3.34
Recital 10�� 3.150
Recital 11�� 3.45; 4.4, 4.20,
4.37, 4.41, 4.53
Recital 12�� 3.103
Recital 13�� 3.121, 3.132
Recital 14�� 3.57
Dir 2011/77/EU
art 1(1)�� 2.36
art 1(2)�� 2.38
Dir 2012/28/EU�� 2.93, 2.94,
2.97
Dir 2014/26/EU�� 7.192
Dir 2014/104�� 15.38,
15.39, 15.44
art 1�� 15.40
art 2�� 15.40
art 3�� 15.41

Table of European Legislation
xxviii
Dir 2014/104 – contd
art 3(3)�� 15.47
art 4�� 15.41
art 4(2)�� 15.47
art 5�� 15.42, 15.43
art 6�� 15.42, 15.43
art 7, 8�� 15.42
art 11�� 15.44
art 36�� 15.45
Recital 28�� 15.46
Recital 29�� 15.46
Dir 2015/1535/EU�� 7.185
Dir 2015/2436/EU�� 13.3, 13.8,
13.12, 13.20
art 5(4)(a)�� 14.35
art 10�� 14.57
art 15�� 14.6
Dir 2016//680/EU�� 10.94
Dir 2016/943/EU�� 10.6, 10.51, 10.72
art 1�� 10.75
art 1(1)�� 10.75, 10.91
art 1(2)�� 10.75
art 1(3)�� 10.76
art 2(4)�� 10.79
art 3(1)�� 10.77
art 3(2)�� 10.77
art 4�� 10.78
art 4(3)–(5)�� 10.79
art 5�� 10.80
Ch III (arts 6–15)�� 10.81
art 6(1), (2)�� 10.82
art 7�� 10.82
art 8, 9�� 10.83
art 12, 13�� 10.86
art 14�� 10.87
art 15�� 10.89
Recital 2�� 10.72
Recital 5�� 10.74
Recital 6�� 10.73
Recital 69�� 10.51, 10.81
Dir 2017/1128/EU�� 7.155
Dir 2017/1564/EU�� 2.100; 7.4,
7.83
REGULATIONS
Reg 1768/92�� 11.2
Reg 40/94�� 13.3
art 9(1)�� 14.52
art 9(1)(c)�� 14.71
Reg 44/2001�� 16.2
art 5(3)�� 6.58; 16.27,
16.28, 16.43
Reg 1206/2001�� 15.42
Reg 6/2002�� 8.51; 16.14
art 3(a)�� 8.24
art 3(b)�� 8.24
art 4(1)�� 8.27
art 6�� 8.34
art 8(1)�� 8.28
art 10(1), (2)�� 8.42
art 14(1)�� 8.39
art 19(2)�� 8.46
art 20�� 8.47
art 20(1)(c)�� 16.19
art 21�� 8.48
art 81(b)�� 16.16
art 82(1)�� 16.16
art 88(2)�� 16.20
art 89(1)�� 16.20
Reg 1/2003�� 15.36
art 23(2)(a)�� 15.35
Reg 1901/2006�� 11.2
Reg 864/2007
art 8(2)�� 16.21
Reg 207/2009�� 13.3
Reg 330/2010�� 15.12
art 2�� 15.12
art 4(b), (c)�� 15.12
Reg 1215/2012�� 6.58; 11.62;
16.2, 16.6, 16.7
art 4�� 16.8
art 6(1)�� 16.20
art 7(2)�� 16.8, 16.27, 16.43
art 8(1)�� 16.8, 16.20, 16.27
art 22(4)�� 16.9, 16.29
art 24�� 16.13
art 24(1)�� 16.4
art 24(2)�� 16.4, 16.10, 16.11
art 24(4)�� 11.62; 16.9, 16.10
art 25�� 16.11
art 29�� 16.12
art 30�� 16.13
art 30(3)�� 16.13
art 32(1)�� 16.13
art 66�� 16.2
art 71a–71d�� 11.62
Reg 1257/2012 (implementing
creation of unitary patent
protection)�� 11.65,
11.71
art 9�� 11.71
Reg 316/2014�� 15.13
art 1�� 15.13

Table of European Legislation
xxix
Reg 2016/679�� 7.164, 7.165,
7.193; 10.94, 10.95,
10.97, 10.109
art 4�� 10.98
art 6�� 10.99
art 6(1)�� 10.104
art 7, 8�� 10.102
art 9�� 10.103
art 10�� 10.104
art 13–19�� 10.105
art 20�� 10.108
art 22(1)�� 10.107
art 25�� 10.100
art 37�� 10.97
art 37(1)�� 10.97
Reg 2016/679 – contd
art 38, 39�� 10.97
Recital 63�� 10.105
Reg 2017/1001�� 13.3, 13.19,
13.56, 13.61; 14.6; 16.14
art 1(2)�� 13.37
art 8(2)(c)�� 13.63
art 9(2)(c)�� 14.64, 14.71
art 15�� 14.6
art 25(1)�� 13.37
art 58�� 13.27
art 58(1)(b)�� 13.27
art 59, 60�� 13.11
Reg 2017/1563�� 2.100
Reg 2018/625�� 13.57

xxx

xxxi
Table of Cases
1800-Flowers Inc v Phonenames Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 721, [2001] 2 Costs LR 286,
[2002] FSR 12�� 16.37
1800-Flowers Trade Mark [2000] ETMR 369, [2000] FSR 697�� 16.37
A
A v B plc (a company) [2002] EWCA Civ 337, [2003] QB 195, [2002] 3 WLR 542�� 10.56
AG Spalding & Bros v AW Gamage Ltd (Taxation) [1914-15] All ER Rep 147,
(1915) 31 TLR 328, (1915) 84 LJ Ch 449�� 14.82
A-G v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd Third Party) [2001] 1 AC 268, [2000] 3 WLR 625,
[2000] 4 All ER 385�� 10.45
A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd [1990] 1 AC 109, [1988] 3 WLR 776, [1988]
3 All ER 545�� 2.107; 10.16, 10.20
AMF Inc v Sleekcraft Boards 599 F 2d 341 (9th Cir, 1979)�� 14.20
AMP Inc v Utilux Pty Ltd [1971] 10 WLUK 90, [1971] FSR 572, [1972] RPC 103�� 8.28
AT Poeton (Gloucester Plating) Ltd v Horton [2000] ICR 1208, [2001] FSR 14, (2000)
23 (8) IPD 23060�� 10.26
AT & T Knowledge Ventures LP v Comptroller General of Patents Designs & Trade
Marks [2009] EWHC 343 (Pat), [2009] Info TLR 69, [2009] FSR 19�� 12.99,
12.100, 12.103
Abbey v Gilligan & Associated Newspapers Ltd [2012] EWHC 3217 (QB), [2012]
11 WLUK 547, [2013] EMLR 12�� 10.38
Abkco Music & Records Inc v Music Collection International Ltd [1995] EMLR 449,
[1995] RPC 657�� 3.72
Actavis UK Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2008] EWCA Civ 444, [2009] 1 WLR 1186, [2008]
RPC 26�� 12.93
Adidas-Salomon AG v Fitnessworld Trading Ltd (Case C-408/01) [2004] Ch 120,
[2004] 2 WLR 1095, [2003] ECR I-12537�� 13.20; 14.36
Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd; Macrossan’s Patent Application [2006] EWCA Civ
1371, [2007] 1 All ER 225, [2007] RPC 7�� 11.3; 12.56,
12.81, 12.84, 12.86, 12.87, 12.93,
12.94, 12.96, 12.97, 12.99,
12.100, 12.102, 12.116
Airfield NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auters, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA
(Sabam) (Joined Cases C-431/09 & C-432/09) [2011] ECR I-9363, [2011] 10
WLUK 347, [2012] ECDR 3�� 7.45
Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 609, [2011]
QB 497, [2010] FSR 30�� 13.73
Algemeen Dagblad BV v Eureka Internetdienster [2002] ECDR 1�� 6.12; 7.23
Alice Corpn Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International 134 S Ct 2347 (2014)�� 12.24, 12.25,
12.26, 12.28, 12.29,
12.52, 12.116
Allen v Bloomsbury Publishing plc [2010] EWHC 2560 (Ch), [2010] ECDR 16�� 4.6

Table of Cases
xxxii
Altera Corpn v Clear Logic Inc (15 September 2005)�� 9.11, 9.16, 9.20, 9.41
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (No 1) [1975] AC 396, [1975] 2 WLR 316,
[1975] 1 All ER 504�� 2.70
Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, Národní Podnik (Case C-245/02)
[2004] ECR I-10989, [2004] 11 WLUK 412, [2005] ETMR 27�� 13.31
Apimed Medical Honey Ltd v Brightwake Ltd (t/a Advancis Medical) [2012] EWCA
Civ 5, [2012] RPC 17�� 12.102
Apis-Hristovich EOOD v Lakorda AD (Case C-545/07) [2009] Bus LR 1554,
[2009] ECR I-01627, [2009] 3 CMLR 3�� 6.51, 6.52, 6.53, 6.54, 6.95
Apple Computer Inc v Computer Edge Pty Ltd [1984] FSR 246�� 3.9
Apple Computer Inc v Design Registry [2002] ECDR 19, [2002] FSR 38,
[2002] Masons CLR 21�� 1.18; 8.18, 8.19
Aquinas Education Ltd v Dorian Miller [2018] EWHC 404 (QB), [2018] 3 WLUK 53,
[2018] IRLR 518�� 10.43
Argos Ltd v Argos Systems Inc [2018] EWCA Civ 2211, [2018] 10 WLUK 157�� 14.71
Arsenal Football Club plc v Reed (Case C-206/01) [2003] Ch 454, [2003] 3 WLR 450,
[2002] ECR I-10273�� 14.34
Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc 569 US 576 (2013)�� 12.17
Attheraces Ltd v British Horseracing Board Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 38, [2007] UKCLR
309, [2007] ECC 7�� 15.23
Autodesk Inc v Dyason [1992] RPC 575�� 3.77
Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aĜentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība
v Konkurences padome (Case C-177/16)�� 15.25
Availability to the Public (G01/92) [1993] EPOR 241�� 11.13
Axel Springer AG v Germany (39954/08) [2012] EMLR 15, (2012) 55 EHRR 6,
32 BHRC 493�� 10.63
B
BMG Rights Management (US) LLC v Cox Communications Inc (No 16-1972)
(CA, 4th Cir, 1 Feb 2018�� 7.137
BGW Beratungs-Gessellschaft Wirtschaft mBH v Bodo Scholz (Case C-20/14)
[2015] 10 WLUK 575, [2016] ETMR 1�� 13.18
BHB Enterprises plc v Victor Chandler (International) Lts [2005] EWHC 1074 (Ch),
[2005] UKCLR 787, [2005] ECC 40�� 15.24
BO Morris Ltd v F Gilman (BST) Ltd (1943) 60 RPC 20�� 2.15
Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247, [2008] EMLR 7,
[2007] FSR 24�� 4.6
Baker v Selden 101 US 99 (1880)�� 2.52; 4.7
Balan v Moldova (Application 19247/033) [2008] 1 WLUK 33, [2009] ECDR 6�� 7.51
Balston Ltd v Headline Filters Ltd (No 2) [1987] FSR 330�� 10.36
Banyan Tree Holdings (P) Ltd v Reddy [2010] FSR 8�� 16.41
Barclays Bank plc v RBS Advanta [1997] ETMR 199, [1996] RPC 307, (1996)
15 Tr LR 262�� 13.30
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Acacia Srl (Case C-433/16) [2018] Bus LR 419,
[2017] 7 WLUK 248, [2018] CEC 226�� 16.16
Baywatch Production Co Inc v Home Video Channel [1997] EMLR 102, [1997]
FSR 22, (1997) 20 (1) IPD 20010�� 14.42
Baywatch Trade Mark Application (12 November 1999) �� 13.15
Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs Componsiten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM)
v Netlog NV (Case C-360/10) [2012] 2 CMLR 18, [2012] CEC 1271�� 7.133

Table of Cases
xxxiii
Berkeley Administration Inc v McClelland (Breach of Confidence) [1990] FSR 505�� 10.32
Bezpecˇnostni Softwarová Asociace – Svaz Softwarove Ochrany v Ministerstvo Kultury
(Case C-393/09) [2011] ECDR 3, [2011] FSR 18, [2010] ECR I-13971�� 3.18,
3.61, 3.94; 4.9, 4.28,
4.49, 4.54, 4.63, 4.64; 8.8
Bilski v Kappos 561 US (2010)�� 12.21, 12.22
Bocacina Ltd v Boca Cafes Ltd [2013] EWHC 3090 (IPEC)�� 14.90, 14.91
Boehringer Inleheim Ltd v VetPlus Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 583, [2007] Bus LR 1456,
[2007] ETMR 67�� 14.117
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co v Paranova A/S (Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 &
C-436/93) [2003] Ch 75, [2002] 3 WLR 1746, [1996] ECR I-3457�� 15.51
British Airways plc v Ryanair Ltd [2001] ETMR 24, [2001] FSR 32, (2001) 24 (3)
IPD 24013�� 14.116
British Celanese Ltd v Courtaulds Ltd (1935) 52 RPC 171�� 12.108
British Horseracing Board Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd (Case C-203/02) [2009]
Bus LR 932, [2004] ECR I-10415, [2005] 1 CMLR 15�� 6.12, 6.17, 6.19, 6.20,
6.22, 6.48, 6.51, 6.52, 6.55,
6.57, 6.60, 6.63, 6.68, 6.71,
6.103, 6.107; 15.24
British Leyland Motor Corpn v Armstrong Patents Co Ltd [1986] AC 577, [1986]
2 WLR 400, [1986] 1 All ER 850 , [1986] RPC 279�� 3.35,
3.134, 3.135; 6.86
British Sky Broadcasting Group plc v Microsoft Corpn [2013] EWHC 1826 (Ch)�� 14.39
British South Africa Co v Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602, [1891–94]
All ER Rep 640�� 16.4, 16.5, 16.23
British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd see Marks & Spencer plc
v One in a Million Ltd
Brooktree Corpn v Advanced Micro Devices Inc 977 F 2d 1555 (1992)�� 9.14, 9.15,
9.19, 9.35, 9.41
Brookfield Communications Inc v West Coast Entertainment Corpn 174 F 3d 1036
(9th Cir, 1999)�� 14.21, 14.48
Browne v Flower [1911] 1 Ch 219, [1908-10] All ER Rep 547, [1910] 11 WLUK 88�� 5.63
Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 1243, [2006] 3 All ER 336�� 7.64
Burrough’s Corpn (Perkin’s) Application, Re [1973] FSR 439, [1974] RPC 147�� 12.14
Burrows v Smith [2010] EWHC 22 (Ch), [2010] Info TLR 69�� 10.10, 10.18
Buttress BV v L’Oreal Produits de Luxe France SNC [2008] ETMR 51�� 16.41
Byrne v Dean [1937] 1 KB 818, [1937] 2 All ER 204�� 14.113
C
CA Sheimer (M) Sdn Bhd’s Trade Mark Application [2000] ETMR 1170 (Note),
[2000] RPC 484�� 14.42
CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics plc [1988] AC 1013, [1988] 2 WLR
1191, [1988] 2 All ER 484�� 3.72
CFPH LLC’s Applications (Nos 0226884.3 & 0419317.3) [2005] EWHC 1589 (Pat),
[2006] RPC 5, 28(9) IPD 28070�� 12.72, 12.73,
12.79, 12.80
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWHC 499 (QB), [2002] EMLR 30;
revs’d [2002] EWCA Civ 1373, [2003] QB 633, [2003] 2 WLR 80; revs’d [2004]
UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457, [2004] 2 WLR 1232�� 10.56, 10.59, 10.60,
10.62, 10.66

Table of Cases
xxxiv
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (HK) Ltd [1997] C 728, [1997]
3 WLR 13, [1997] FSR 817�� 2.108; 3.135
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc (Case C-39/97) [1998]
ECR I-5507, [1998] 9 WLUK 285, [1999] 1 CMLR 77�� 14.19
Cantor Fitzgerald International v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2000] RPC 95, [1999] Masons
CLR 157, (1999) 22 (7) IPD 22068�� 3.51, 3.77, 3.78;
4.22, 4.23, 4.29; 5.54
Cantor Gaming Ltd v Gameaacount Global Ltd [2007] EWHC 1914 (Ch), [2007]
ECC 24, [2008] FSR 4�� 5.38
Cappellini’s Application (No GB2381884A) [2007] EWHC 476 (Pat), [2007] Info
TLR 97, [2007] FSR 26�� 12.89, 12.90
Carflow Products (UK) Ltd v Linwood Securities (Birmingham) Ltd [1996] FSR 424,
(1996) 19 (6) IPD 19048�� 10.16
Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 658, [2017]
1 All ER 700, [2017] RPC 3�� 1.20; 7.143, 7.147;
14.75, 14.78
Cartier International AG v British Telecommunciations plc [2018] UKSC 28, [2018]
1 WLR 3259, [2018] 4 All ER 373�� 7.144, 7.147, 7.148,
7.154; 14.79
Celltech Chiroscience Ltd v MedIimmune Inc [2002] EWHC 2167 (Pat),
[2003] FSR 25�� 16.11
Centrafarm BV v Sterling Drug Inc (Case C-15/74) [1974] ECR 1183, [1974] ECR
1147, [1974] 2 CMLR 480�� 7.56
Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd [1966] Ch 71, [1966] 2 WLR 40,
[1965] 3 All ER 764�� 2.10
Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks (Case C-307/10)
[2013] Bus LR 740, [2012] 6 WLUK 363, [2013] CEC 361�� 13.16
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v Franz Hauswirth GmbH [2010] Bus LR 443,
[2009] ECR I-4893, [2009] ETMR 56�� 13.15
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1968] FSR 415, [1969] RPC 41�� 10.8, 10.12,
10.20, 10.58
Collag Corpn v Merck & Co Inc [2003] FSR 16�� 10.12
Colonial Bank v Whinney (1885) LR 30 Ch D 261�� 2.10
combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd (Case C-223/15) [2016]
Bus LR 1393, [2016] 9 WLUK 420�� 13.57
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Microsoft Corpn (unreported, 30 June 2004)�� 15.33
Compagnie Générale des Eaux v Compagnie Générale des Eaux Sdn Bhd [1997]
FSR 610�� 14.100
COMPTEL / Classification method (Case T1784/06) [2012] 9 WLUK 372, [2013]
EPOR 9�� 12.59, 12.60
COMVIK / Two Identities (Case T641/00) [2002] 9 WLUK 326, [2004]
EPOR 10�� 12.60, 12.61, 12.62
Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks v Intellectual Property Agency
Ltd [2015] EWHC 3256 (IPEC), [2015] 11 WLUK 213, [2016] FSR 22�� 13.63
Computer Associates International Inc v Altai Inc 982 F 2d 693 (2nd Cir, 1992)�� 3.46;
4.8, 4.13, 4.14, 4.16,
4.17, 4.25, 4.26,
4.27, 4.67; 9.17
Computermax Inc v UCR Inc 26 USPQ 2d 1001 (MD Georgia 1992)�� 4.13
Conductive Inkjet Technology Ltd v Uni-Pixel Displays Inc [2013] EWHC 2968 (Ch),
[2014] 1 All ER (Comm) 654, [2014] FSR 22�� 16.8

Table of Cases
xxxv
Conor Medsystems Inc v Angiotech Pharmaceuticals Inc [2008] UKHL 49, [2008] 4 All
ER 621, [2008] RPC 28�� 12.93
Conservant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Ltd [2018] EWHC
1216 (Ch)�� 11.40
Cooperateive Vereniging SNB-REACT UA v Deepak Mehta (Case C-521/17) [2018]
Bus LR 1825, [2018] 8 WLUK 48, [2018] ETMR 39�� 14.9
Copad SA v Christian Dior Couture SA (Case C-9/08) [2009] Bus LR 1571, [2009]
ECR I-3421, [2009] ETMR 40�� 13.34
Corelli v Gray [1913] TLR 570�� 2.50; 4.1, 4.6, 4.21
Cosmetic Warriors v Amazon.co.uk Ltd [2014] EWHC 181 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLUK 282,
[2014] FSR 31�� 14.15
Coty Germany GmbH v eBay International AG [2011] 12 WLUK 681, [2012]
ETMR 19�� 14.29
Coty Germany GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV (Case C-360/12) [2014] Bus LR 1294,
[2014] 6 WLUK 128, [2015] CEC 511�� 16.27
Coty Germany GmbH v Parfumerie Akzente GmbH (Case C-230/16) [2018] Bus
LR 1371, [2017] 12 WLUK 111, [2018] 4 CMLR 9�� 15.10, 15.12
Coward v Phaestos Ltd [2013] EWHC 1292 (Ch)�� 10.19
Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd [2009] EWHC 1588 (Pat), [2009] Info TLR 357, [2010]
FSR 3�� 12.100
Crawford’s Patent Application (No GB0108683.4) [2005] EWHC 2417 (Pat), [2006]
RPC 11�� 12.74, 12.78
Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253, [2004] 3
WLR 918�� 14.69
Creative Technology Ltd v Aztech Systems Pte Ltd [1997] FSR 491�� 3.101
Credinfor SA v Artprice.com [2005] ECC 22, [2006] ECDR 15�� 5.27
Cummins v Bond [1927] 1 Ch 167, [1926] 7 WLUK 97�� 3.179
Cybersource Corpn v Retail Decisions Inc 645 F 3d 1366 (Fed Cir, 2011)�� 12.23
D
DP Anderson & Co Ltd v Leiber Code Co [1917] 2 KB 469�� 3.55
Daimler AG v Egyud Garage Gepjarmujavito es Erekesito Kft (Case C-179/15)
[2016] Bus LR 632, [2016] 3 WLUK 99, [2016] CEC 1322�� 14.12, 14.88
Dalrymple (JR)’s Application, Re [1957] RPC 449�� 10.12
Danske Dagblades Forening (DDF) v Newsbooster [2003] ECDR 5�� 7.23
Data Engine Technologies LLC v Google LLC (Case T-208/84) [1987] 2 EPOR 74�� 12.28
Davidoff & Cie SA v Gofkid Ltd (Case C-292/00) [2003] 1 WLR 1714, [2003]
All ER (EC) 1029, [2003] ECR I-389�� 13.20
Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264, [1978] 2 WLR 553, [1978] 1 All ER 1132�� 12.83
Dearlove (t/a Diddy) v Combs (t/a Sean Puffy Combs, Puffy & P Diddy) [2007] EWHC
375 (Ch), [2008] EMLR 2, [2007] Info TLR 295�� 16.38
Def Lepp Music v Stuart Brown [1986] RPC 273�� 16.24
Delves-Broughton v House of Harlot Ltd [2012] EWPCC 29, [2012] 5 WLUK 571,
[2012] Info TLR 343�� 2.121
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (t/a Washington DC) [2000]
1 WLR 2416, [2001] 1 All ER 700, [2001] FSR 11�� 2.49; 3.47, 3.75; 4.1, 4.36
Diamond v Diehr 450 US 175 (1981)�� 12.18, 12.19
Die BergSpechte Outdoor Reisen und Alpinschule Edi Koblmüller GmbH v Günter
Guni (Case C-2778/08) [2010] ECR I-2517, [2010] ETMR 33�� 14.53, 14.60
Digital Equipment Corpn v LCE Computer Maintenance Ltd (unreported,
22 May 1992) �� 3.136

Table of Cases
xxxvi
Directline Group Ltd v Directline Estate Agency [1997] FSR 374�� 14.97
Directmedia Publishing GmbH v Albert Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (Case C-304/07)
[2008] ECR I-7565, [2008] ECDR 16�� 1.38; 6.51, 6.52
Donaldson v Beckett (1774) 2 Bro PC 129, 1 ER 837�� 1.8; 2.1
Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 6) [2005] EWCA Civ 595, [2006] QB 125, [2005]
3 WLR 881�� 10.14, 10.57, 10.58
Dramatico Entertainment Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2012] EWHC 1152 (Ch),
[2012] 5 WLUK 49, [2012] 3 CMLR 15�� 7.134
Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48, [2003] 2 AC 366, [2002] 3 WLR
1913 �� 6.71
Dufour v News Group Newspapers Ltd (unreported, 12 June 2015)�� 10.39
DUNS LICENSING ASSOCIATES / estimating sales activity (T154/04) [2007]
EPOR 38�� 12.52, 12.55, 12.85
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 166, [2006] RPC 31, (2006) 29 (6)
IPD 29044�� 9.25
Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1206, [2013] Bus LR 328, [2012] FSR 4�� 8.28, 8.34
E
EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch), [2013] Bus
LR 884, [2013] ECDR 8�� 7.133
ESL Fuels Ltd v Fletcher [2013] EWHC 3726 (Ch), [2013] 11 WLUK 762�� 10.42
easyJet Airline Co Ltd v Dainty (t/a easyRealestate) [2001] EBLR 104, [2002] FSR 6,
[2001] Masons CLR 94�� 14.105
eBay Inc v MercExchange LLC 547 US 388 (2006)�� 1.4
Electrolux Ltd v Hudson [1977] FSR 312�� 11.25
Eli Lilly & Co v Human Genome Sciences Inc [2008] EWHC 1903 (Pat), [2008]
RPC 29, (2009) 105 BMLR 27; aff ’d [2010] EWCA Civ 33, [2010] RPC 14,
(2010) 112 BMLR 161; revs’d [2011] UKSC 51, [2012] 1 All ER 1154, [2012]
RPC 6�� 11.19, 11.20
Enfish LLC v Microsoft Corpn 822 F 3d 1327 (Fed Cir 2016)�� 12.25
Engineering Dynamics Inc v Structural Software Inc 26 F 3d 1335 (5th Cir 1994)�� 4.13
Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 300 (Ch), [2015]
2 WLUK 329�� 13.43
Entidad de Gestion de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA)
v Administracion del Estrada (Case C-470/14) [2016] 6 WLUK 208, [2017]
CEC 111�� 7.81
Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd (No 1) [1979] AC 731, [1979]
3 WLR 68, [1979] 2 All ER 927�� 13.65; 14.86
Euromarket Designs Inc v Peters [2000] ETMR 1025, [2001] FSR 20�� 16.36, 16.39
Executive Grapevine International Ltd v Wall [2012] EWHC 4152 (Ch)�� 6.53
Express Newspapers plc v Liverpool Daily Post & Echo [1985] 1 WLR 1089, [1985] 3
All ER 680, [1986] ECC 204�� 3.174, 3.179; 8.13
Exxon Corpn v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch 119, [1981]
3 WLR 541, [1981] 3 All ER 241, [1982] RPC 69�� 3.9, 3.52; 4.41
F
FKI Engineering Ltd v Stribog Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 622, [2011] 1 WLR 3264, [2012]
1 All ER (Comm) 549�� 16.13
FSS Travel & Leisure Systems Ltd v Johnson [1998] IRLR 382, [1999] ITCLR 218,
[1999] FSR 505�� 10.35

Table of Cases
xxxvii
Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1985] 1 All ER 724, [1984] ICR 589, [1984] IRLR 61;
aff ’d [1987] Ch 117, [1986] 3 WLR 288, [1986] 1 All ER 617�� 10.21, 10.25,
10.26, 10.36, 10.68
Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5, [2014] 1 WLUK 663, [2014]
FSR 29�� 13.66
Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co Inc 499 US 340 (1991)�� 3.30,
3.35; 4.17; 5.2; 6.1
Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) [2015] EWCA Civ 3, [2015] 1 WLR
3291, [2015] FSR 14�� 13.67, 13.68
Fitch v Dewes [1921] 2 AC 158�� 10.32
Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou (OPAP)
(Case C-444/02) [2004] ECR I-10549, [2005] 1 CMLR 16, [2005] CEC 38 �� 5.19; 6.8,
6.12, 6.14, 6.18, 6.20,
6.44, 6.61, 6.69, 6.107
Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Oy Veikkaus AB (Case C-46/02) [2004] ECR I-10365,
[2005] ECDR 2�� 6.12, 6.18, 6.20, 6.107
Fixtures Marketing Ltd v Svenska Spel AB (Case C-338/02) [2004] ECR I-10497,
[2005] ECDR 4�� 6.12, 6.18, 6.20, 6.107
Flogates Britain Ltd v Calor Gas Ltd [2013] EWHC 3060 (Ch), [2013] 10 WLUK 471,
[2014] FSR 34�� 6.16, 6.21, 6.71; 10.47
Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting [2013] EWHC
2058 (Ch), [2013] 7 WLUK 490, [2013] ECDR 14�� 7.134
Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc
[2017] EWHC 480 (Ch), [2017] 3 WLUK 305, [2017] ECDR 17�� 7.139, 7.142
Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure (Case C-403/08) [2011]
ECDR 11, [2011] ECR I-9083�� 3.2; 7.34, 7.39, 7.41,
7.67, 7.105, 7.141; 15.8, 15.53
Football Dataco Ltd v Brittens Pools Ltd [2010] EWHC 841 (Ch), [2010] 3 CMLR 25,
[2010] RPC 17�� 5.26, 5.29
Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar GmbH (Case C-173/11) [2013] 1 CMLR 29, [2013]
FSR 4�� 6.58
Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar GmbH [2013] EWCA Civ 27, [2013] Bus LR 837,
[2013] FSR 30�� 6.3, 6.8, 6.20,
6.21, 6.23, 6.70
Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd (Case C-604/10) [2012] ECDR 7�� 5.24, 5.29, 5.36
Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Aerolab Srl sub nom Force India Formula One
Team Ltd v Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd [2013] EWCA Civ 780, [2013]
RPC 36�� 10.48
Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd v Akzo Nobel NV [1998] ILPr 732, [1998] FSR 222,
(1998) 21 (1) IPD 21003�� 16.23
France.com Inc v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Case T-71/17)
[2018] 6 WLUK 505�� 13.18
Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corpn Ltd [1940] AC 112,
[1939] 4 All ER 192�� 7.24
Frank Industries Pty Ltd v Nike Retail BV [2018] EWHC 1893 (Ch), [2018] 7 WLUK
597, [2018] FSR 35�� 13.31
Freistat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH (Case C-490/14) [2015] Bus LR 1428,
[2015] 10 WLUK 766�� 5.16
Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co Ltd v Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd [2017] EWHC 395
(Pat), [2017] 3 WLUK 104, [2018] RPC 1�� 10.82
FUJITSU / file search method (T1351/04)�� 12.95

Table of Cases
xxxviii
Fujitsu Ltd’s Patent Application (No 9204959.2) [1997-98] Info TLR 103, [1997]
RPC 608, (1997) 16 Tr LR 352�� 12.68, 12.76, 12.82,
12.83, 12.96
Fundación Española para la Innovacion de la Artesania (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio
Creativo SL (Case C-32/08) [2010] Bus LR 466, [2009] ECR I-5611, [2009]
ECDR 19�� 8.39
G
GA Cramp & Sons Ltd v Frank Smythson Ltd [1944] AC 329, [1944]
2 All ER 92�� 3.35; 7.12
GS Media BV v Samona Media Netherlands BV (Case C-160/15) [2016] Bus LR 1231,
[2016] 9 WLUK 124, [2017] 1 CMLR 30�� 2.62;
7.36, 7.38
Gale’s Application, Re [1991] RPC 305�� 12.15, 12.64, 12.66,
12.82, 12.96
Gama Healthcare Ltd v PAL International Ltd [2016] EWHC 75 (IPEC), [2016]
1 WLUK 316 �� 13.63
Gates Rubber Co v Bando Chemical Ltd 9 F 3d 823 (10th Cir 1993)�� 4.14
Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc v Virgin Media Ltd [2009] EWHC 3068 (Ch),
[2009] Info TLR 227, [2010] RPC 10�� 12.103
Genentech Inc’s Patent (Human Growth Hormone) [1989] RPC 147�� 12.67, 12.83
Gesellschaft fur Antriebstechnik mbH & Co KG (GAT) v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau
Beteiligungs KG (LuK) (Case C-4/03) [2006] ECR I-6509, [2007] ILPr 34, [2006]
FSR 45�� 16.11
Gever’s Application, Re [1969] FSR 480, [1970] RPC 91�� 12.13
Gillette Safety Razor Co v Anglo-American Trading Co Ltd (1913) 30 RPC 465�� 11.44
Glaxo plc v Glaxowellcome Ltd [1996] FSR 388�� 14.97
Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co [1916] 1 Ch 261�� 4.21
Goodrich Actuation Systems Ltd v Valente (unreported, 23 July 2018)�� 10.47, 10.78
Google France SARL v Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (Case C-236/08) [2011] All ER
(EC) 411, [2011] Bus LR 1, [2010] ECR I-2417�� 14.16, 14.51, 14.55,
14.58, 14.60, 14.64
Google Inc v Copiepresse SCRL [2007] ECDR 5�� 7.23
Gottschalk v Benson 409 US 63 (1972)�� 12.18
Greater Glasgow Health Board’s Application, Re [1996] RPC 207, (1996) 19 (1)
IPD 19003�� 11.25
Green Lane Products Ltd v PMS International Group plc [2007] EWHS 1712 (Pat),
[2008] Bus LR 338, [2008] FSR 1�� 8.30
Griggs Group Ltd v Evans (No 1) [2005] EWCA Civ 11, [2005] ECDR 30, [2005]
FSR 31�� 2.27, 2.28
Gromax Plasticulture Ltd v Dun & Low Nonwovens Ltd [1999] RPC 367, (1998) 21 (9)
IPD 21098�� 13.14
Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks & Designs) (OHIM) (T9/07) [2010] ECR II-981, [2010] ECDR 7,
[2011] Bus LR D13�� 8.35
Gust Inc v AlphaCap Ventures LLC 226 F Supp 232 (SD NY, 8 December 2016)�� 12.26
Gut Springenheide GmbH v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt – Amt
fur Lebensmitteluberwachung (Case C-210/96) [1998] ECR I-4657, [1999]
1 CMLR 1383�� 14.19

Table of Cases
xxxix
H
HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 451, [2013] RPC 30�� 12.2, 12.102
Halliburton Energy Services Inc’s Patent Applications [2011] EWHC 2508 (Pat),
[2012] RPC 12, (2011) 108 (41) LSG 23�� 12.77, 12.84
Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd [2006] EWCA
Civ 185, [2006] RPC 26 �� 12.102, 12.112
Hanfstaengl v Empire Palace [1894] 2 Ch 1�� 16.1
Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Prast-Knipping (Case C-341/16) [2018] Bus LR 1384,
[2017] 10 WLUK 82, [2018] CEC 240�� 16.9
Harbor Software Inc v Applied Systems Inc 925 F Supp 1042 (SD NY 1996)�� 4.14
Harman Pictures NV v Osborne [1967] 1 WLR 723, [1967] 2 All ER 324, (1967) 111
SJ 434�� 4.21
Harris’s Patent [1985] RPC 19�� 11.25
Hawkes & Sons (London) Ltd v Paramount Film Service Ltd [1934] Ch 593�� 2.44
Hearst Holdings Inc v AVELA Inc [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch), [2014] 2 WLUK 790,
[2014] ETMR 34�� 13.67
Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688�� 10.32, 10.67
Hewlett-Packard Belgium SPRL v Reprobel SCRL (Case C-572/13) [2016] Bus LR 73,
[2015] 11 WLUK 304, [2016] ECDR 2�� 7.50
Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (t/a Amazing Animals) v Captive Animals Protection
Society (CAPS) [2016] EWHC 1370 (Ch), [2016] 5 WLUK 472, [2017]
FSR 10�� 10.14, 10.37
Hilti AG v Commission to the European Communities (Case T-30/89) [1991]
ECR II-1439, [1992] 4 CMLR 16, [1992] FSR 210�� 15.28
HITACHI / auction method (T258/03) [2004] EPOR 55�� 12.43, 12.43, 12.45,
12.49, 12.58, 12.79,
12.80, 12.82, 12.83,
12.86, 12.95, 12.108
Hollie Hobby Trade Mark [1994] FSR 199 �� 13.3
Hollinrake v Truswell [1893] 2 Ch 377�� 3.9
Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20�� 10.52
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corpn (Case C-170/13) [2015] Bus LR 1261,
[2015] 7 WLUK 564, [2015] 5 CMLR 14�� 11.36,
11.38; 15.19
Huber v Ross 1912 SC 898, 1912 1 SLT 399, [1912] 3 WLUK 61�� 5.63
Hyperion Records Ltd v Sawkins [2005] EWCA Civ 565, [2005] 1 WLR 3281,
[2005] RPC 32�� 2.123
I
IBM / Card Reader (T854/90) [1994] EPOR 89�� 12.37, 12.43, 12.72
IBM / Computer programs (T935/97) [1999] EPOR 301, [1998-99] Info TLR 135,
[1999] RPC 861�� 12.38, 12.55
IBM / Document abstracting & retrieving (T22/85) [1990] EPOR 98�� 12.36
IGT / computer implemented game process (T1023/06) [2007] EPOR 36�� 12.49
IGT / electronic multi-play poker (T336/07) [2008] EPOR 18�� 12.101
IMS Health GmbH & Co OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co KG (Case C-418/01) [2004]
All ER (EC) 813, [2004] ECR I-5039, [2004] 4 CMLR 28�� 15.21
IRC Comrs v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217�� 13.63; 14.83
ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TV Catchup Ltd (Case C-607/11) [2013] Bus LR 1020,
[2013] 3 CMLR 1, [2013] ECDR 9�� 7.35, 7.36, 7.42

Table of Cases
xl
Ibcos Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance Ltd [1994] FSR 275,
[1998] Masons CLR Rep 1�� 3.46, 3.49, 3.51, 3.84,
3.88, 3.90; 4.27, 4.28,
4.35; 5.47, 5.58; 7.13
India TV Independent News Service Pvt Ltd v India Broadcast Live LLC [2008] FSR 2
(High Ct, Delhi)�� 14.107
Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-5/08) [2012]
Bus LR 102, [2009] ECR I-6569, [2009] ECDR 16�� 2.42;
3.36; 4.59, 4.63; 7.66,
7.68, 7.69, 7.70,
7.71, 7.75, 7.184
Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (Case C-302/10)
[2012] ECR I�� 7.28, 7.68, 7.69, 7.70,
7.71, 7.75, 7.184
Innoweb BV v Wegener ICT Media (Case C-202/12) [2014] Bus LR 308, [2013]
12 WLUK 667�� 6.59
Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc [2011] ECR I-8625�� 14.7, 14.55, 14.56, 14.64, 14.66
Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc [2013] EWCA Civ 319, [2013] FSR 26�� 13.44
Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc [2013] EWHC 1291 (Ch), [2013] 5 WLUK
540, [2013] FSR 33; revs’d [2014] EWCA Civ 1403, [2015] Bus LR 492,
[2015] FSR 10�� 14.66, 14.69
Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc [2014] EWHC 4168 (Ch), [2014] 12 WLUK 55,
[2015] FSR 13�� 14.69
Interflora Inc v Marks & Spencer plc (Case C-323/09) [2012] Bus LR 1440, [2011] 9
WLUK 460, [2013] All ER (EC) 519�� 14.15
Intel Corpn Inc v CPM United Kingdom Ltd (Case C-252/07) [2009] Bus LR 1079,
[2008] ECR I-8823, [2009] CEC 668�� 14.35
Intel Corpn Inc v European Commission (Case C-413/14P) [2017] 8 WLUK 57,
[2017] 5 CMLR 18�� 15.26
Internet Specialities West v Milon-DiGiorgio Enterprises Inc 559 F 3d 985
(9th Cir, 2009)�� 14.23
Irvine v Talksport Ltd (Damages) [2003] EWCA Civ 423, [2003] 2 All ER 881,
[2003] FSR 35�� 13.68
J
JA Mont (UK) Ltd v Mills [1993] IRLR 172, [1993] FSR 577�� 10.34
Jif Lemon see Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc
Jockey Club v Rahim (unreported, 22 July 1983)�� 3.174, 3.179; 8.13
John Richardson Computers Ltd v Flanders [1993] FSR 497�� 4.8, 4.25, 4.27, 4.28
Johnson Controls Inc v Phoenix Control Systems Inc 886 F 2d 1173 (9th Cir 1989)�� 4.17
K
KK Suwa Siekosha’s Design Application [1982] RPC 166�� 8.18
Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v Ball (Application for Summary
Judgment) [2004] EWHC 1738 (Ch), [2005] ECC 24, [2005] FSR 9�� 3.135,
3.137; 7.101, 7.113; 15.49
Karlsruhe Court of Appeals [1906] WRP 587 �� 3.164
Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62�� 10.52
Kelly v GE Healthcare [2009] EWHC 181 (Pat), [2009] RPC 12, (2009) 32 (5) IPD
32035�� 11.27

Table of Cases
xli
Kenzo Tsukimoto v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Cases C-85/16P & C-86/16P) (Judgment 30 May 2018)�� 13.18
King v South African Weather Service [2008] 11 WLUK 720, [2009] FSR 6�� 2.24, 2.26
King Features Syndicate Inc v O & M Kleeman Ltd [1941] AC 417, [1941] 2 All ER
403, [1941] 5 WLUK 46�� 13.67
Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd (No 2); Kirin-Amgen v Transkaryotic
Therapies Inc (No 2) [2004] UKHL 46, [2005] 1 All ER 667, [2005] RPC 9�� 11.9
KOCH & STERZEL / X-ray apparatus (T26/86) [1988] EPOR 72�� 12.45
Koger v O’Donnell [2013] IESC 28 �� 3.86
KONAMI / Video game device (T1793/07) [2009] EPOR 13�� 12.101
Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd
(Case C-299/99) [2003] Ch 159, [2003] 2 WLR 294, [2002] ECR I-5475�� 13.12
L
LA Gear Inc v Hi-Tec Sports plc [1992] FSR 121�� 2.76; 7.98
LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] FSR 145, [1979] RPC 551�� 2.52; 3.86; 4.6
La Croix du Arib SA v Kwikform (UK) Ltd [1998] FSR 493, (1998) 21 (3)
IPD 21029�� 16.1
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273, [1964]
1 All ER 465, (1964) 108 SJ 135�� 2.12, 2.44;
3.30, 3.35
Lambretta Clothing Ltd v Teddy Smith (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 886, [2005] RPC
6, (2004) 148 SJLB 911�� 9.26
Lancashire Fires Ltd v SA Lyons & Co Ltd [1997] IRLR 113, [1996] FSR 629, (1996)
19 (8) IPD 19068�� 10.22, 10.26
Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff (Case C-161/17) [2018] Bus LR 1815,
[2018] 8 WLUK 56, [2018] ECDR 21�� 7.44, 7.46
Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 WLR 251, [1991] 1 All ER 418, [1991] ICR 428
�� 10.69, 10.70
Lantana Ltd v Comptroller General of Parents, Designs & Trade Marks [2014] EWCA
Civ 1463, [2014] 11 WLUK 343, [2015] RPC 16�� 1.37; 12.106, 12.109
La SA des Anciennes Etablissements Panhard et Levassor v Panhard Levassor Motor
Co Ltd [1901] 2 Ch 513, [1901] 7 WLUK 46, (1901) 18 RPC 405�� 14.85
Laserdisken ApSII v Kulturministeriet (Case C-479/04) [2007] All ER (EC) 549,
[2006] ECR I-8089, [2007] CMLR 6�� 7.57
Lauri v Renad [1892] 3 Ch 402�� 6.39
Law Society of Upper Canada v CCH Canadian Ltd [2004] FSR 871�� 3.72
Le Roy v Tatham 14 How 156 (1853)�� 12.17
Levi Strauss & Co v Tesco Stores Ltd [2002] Ch 109, [2002] 2 WLR 321, [2001]
ECR I-8691�� 15.47
Lifestyle Equities CV v Santa Monica Polo Club Ltd [2017] EWHC 3578 (Ch),
[2017] 12 WLUK 658�� 13.43
Linder Recylcingtech GmbH v Franssons Verkstader AB [2009] 10 WLUK 621,
[2010] ECDR 1�� 8.28
Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1985] QB 526, [1984] 3 WLR 539, [1984]
2 All ER 417�� 2.107; 10.15, 10.80
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215, [2001] 2 WLR 1311�� 6.71
Littlewoods Organisation Ltd v Harris [1977] 1 WLR 1472, [1978] 1 All ER 1026,
(1977) 121 SJ 727�� 10.34
Live Nation Motor Sports Inc v Davis (12 December 2006, US Northern District Court
Texas)�� 7.22

Table of Cases
xlii
Lloyd Shuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (Case C-342/97) [1999] All
ER (EC) 587, [1999] ECR I-3819, [1999] 2 CMLR 1343�� 13.24, 13.26; 14.19
London Taxi Corpn Ltd (t/a London Taxi Co) v Fraser-Nash Research Ltd [2016]
EWHC 52 (Ch), [2016] 1 WLUK 321, [2016] ETMR 18�� 13.63
L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV (Case C-487/07) [2010] Bus LR 303, [2009] ECR I-5185,
[2009] 6 WLUK 482�� 13.8; 14.15, 14.32, 14.57
L’Oreal SA v Bellure NV [2010] EWCA Civ 535, [2010] Bus LR 1579,
[2010] RPC 23�� 14.33
L’Oreal SA v eBay International AG (Case C-324/09) [2012] All ER (EC) 501, [2012]
Bus LR 1369, [2011] ECR I-6011�� 6.59; 7.129; 14.16,
14.27, 14.53, 14.74
Lotus Development Corpn v Borland International Inc [1997] FSR 61; aff ’d 516 US 233
(1996)�� 4.11, 4.12
Lotus Development Corpn v Paperback Software International 740 F Supp 37
(D Mass 1990)�� 4.11
Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV (Case C-163/16) [2018] Bus LR 1411, [2018] 6
WLUK 178, [2018] ETMR 31�� 13.12
Lucas Bols v Colgate-Palmolive (1976) 7 IIC 420�� 14.38
Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, [2012] 1 AC 208, [2011]
3 WLR 487�� 16.5, 16.24, 16.25
Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC), [2016] 5 WLUK 672,
[2016] BCC 774�� 16.6
Luskan v Petrus van der Let (Case C-277/10) [2013] ECDR 5�� 7.78
M
MEI / currency validator (T-494/07) [2011] EPOR 36�� 12.58
McCambridge Ltd v Joseph Brennan Bakeries [2014] IEHC 269, [2014] ETMR 44�� 13.69
McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714, [2008] QB 73, [2007] 3 WLR 194�� 10.57
Macmillan & Co Ltd v Cooper (1923) 93 LJPC 113 (PC)�� 4.43; 5.1; 7.11, 7.12
Macmillan v Suresh Chunder Deb (1890) ILR 17 Calc 981�� 4.43
Mafin SpA’s Design [2005] ETMR 106, [2005] ECDR 29�� 8.34
Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Group plc [2016] UKSC 12, [2016] 4 All ER 1027,
[2016] RPC 11�� 8.44
Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte Ltd v Ankenaevnet For Patenter Og Varaemerker
(Case C-320/12) [2013] Bus LR 1106, [2013] ETMR 36�� 13.15
Marathon Asset Management LLP v Seddon [2017] EWHC 300 (Comm), [2017]
2 WLUK 594, [2017] FSR 36�� 10.4
Marks & Spencer plc v One in a Million Ltd sub nom British Telecommunications
plc v One in a Million Ltd [1997-98] Info TLR 316, [1998] ITCLR 7, [1998]
FSR 265�� 14.96, 14.103
Mars UK Ltd v Teknowlegde Ltd (Costs) [1999] 2 Costs LR 44, [2000] FSR 138, (1999)
22 (10) IPD 22097�� 3.134, 3.135,
3.164; 6.86; 10.77
Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724�� 10.34
Mayo Collaborative Services c Prometheus Laboraties Inc 556 US 66 (2012)�� 12.24
MAX-PLANCK / BDP1 Phosphatase (T870/04) [2006] EPOR 14�� 11.19
Media Agency Group Ltd v Space Media Agency Ltd [2018] EWHC 1434 (QB),
[2018] 4 WLUK 275�� 10.10
Mediakabel BV v Commissariaat voor de Media (Case C-89/04) [2005] ECR I-4891,
[2005] Info TLR 307�� 7.39

Table of Cases
xliii
Medical Innovations Ltd v Eakins [2014] EWHC 4626 (Ch), [2014] 12
WLUK 576�� 5.13; 6.66
Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd v William Hill Organisation Ltd [2002] EWHC
397 (Pat), [2002] 3 All ER 597, [2002] RPC 47�� 16.32
Merck Genericos Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda v Merck & Co Inc (Case C-431/05)
[2008] All ER (EC) 40, [2007] ECR I-7001, [2007] 3 CMLR 49�� 3.13
Merck KGaA v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corpn [2017] EWCA Civ 1834, [2017] 11
WLUK 598, [2018] ETMR 10�� 14.72
Merlet v Mothercare plc [1986] RPC 115�� 2.48
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v HN Norton & Co Ltd [1996] RPC 76, (1997) 33
BMLR 201, (1996) 19 (1) IPD 19004�� 12.93
Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated’s application, Re [1988] RPC 1�� 12.64
Merrill Lynch Inc’s Patent Application, Re [1989] RPC 561�� 12.83, 12.84
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc v Grokster Inc 545 US 913 (2005)�� 3.72; 7.53
Micro Leader Business v Commission of the European Communities (T-198/98) [2000]
All ER (EC) 361, [1999] ECR II-3989, [2000] CMLR 886�� 15.7, 15.47
Microsense Systems Ltd v Control Systems Technology Ltd (unreported,
17 July 1991) �� 3.55; 4.41
MICROSOFT / clipboard formats I (T424/03) [2006] EPOR 39�� 12.46, 12.47, 12.55,
12.82, 12.83
MICROSOFT / clipboard formats II (T411/03) [2006] EPOR 40�� 12.46, 12.82, 12.83
Microsoft Corpn v Electro-Wide Ltd [1998] ECC 52, [1997–98] Info TLR 147,
[1997] FSR 580�� 3.173
Microsoft Corpn’s Design; Application for a Declaration of Invalidity by Heidelberger
Druckmaschinen AG [2006] 2 WLUK 110, [2006] ECDR 29�� 8.32
Microsoft Corpn v Commision to the European Communities (Case T-201/04)
[2007] ECR II-3601, [2007] 9 WLUK 269�� 15.31
Microsoft Inc v EC (T-167/08) [2012] ECR II�� 1.28, 1.38;
3.157; 15.32
MICROSDOT / on-demand property system (Case T1370/11) [2016] 3 WLUK 347,
[2016] EPOR 28�� 12.62
Mirage Studios v Counter-Feat Clothing Co Ltd [1990] 10 WLUK 337, [1991]
FSR 145�� 13.67
Moorhouse & Angus & Robertson (Publishers) Pty v University of South Wales [1976]
RPC 151, (1975) 49 AJLR 267�� 3.72
Morison v Moat (1851) 9 Hare 241, 68 ER 492�� 10.1
Morning Star Cooperative Society Ltd v Express Newspapers Ltd [1979] FSR 113�� 14.55
Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2007] EWHC 1908 (Ch), [2007] ECDR 20,
[2007] EMLR 22; revs’d [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2009] Ch 481, [2008]
3 WLR 1360�� 10.61
Musical Hits Database, Re (I ZR 290/02) [2006] ECC 31�� 6.12
N
NVM v De Telegraaf (unreported, 12 September 2000)�� 6.12
Naruto v Slater (Case No 15-cv-04324-WHO) (ND Cal, 28 Jan 2016)�� 8.13
National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1302,
[2018] 6 WLUK 185�� 14.88
Navitaire Inc v EasyJet Airline Co Ltd (No 3) [2004] EWHC 1725 (Ch), [2005] ECC 30,
[2006] RPC 3�� 2.15; 3.27, 3.53, 3.54, 3.55, 3.59, 3.92; 4.23,
4.29, 4.31, 4.32, 4.35, 4.39, 4.42, 4.46, 4.47,
4.61, 4.63; 5.5, 5.58, 5.59; 8.7

Table of Cases
xliv
Neij v Sweden (Admissibility) (40397/12) [2013] ECDR 7, (2013) 56 EHRR
SE19�� 1.10; 2.111; 7.55; 10.54
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] UKHL 38, [2003]
1 AC 551, [2001] 3 WLR 290�� 2.19; 7.19, 7.184
Niche Products Ltd v MacDermid Offshore Solutions LLC (No 2) [2013] EWHC 3540
(IPEC), [2013] 11 WLUK 358, [2014] FSR 24�� 14.117
Nichols v Universal Pictures Co 45 F 2d 119 (2nd Cir, 1930)�� 4.7, 4.13
Nintendo v Centronics Systems Pty Ltd [1994] HCA 27�� 9.41
Nintendo v Compatinet SLU (R 1772/2012-3) [2014] 4 WLUK 535, [2015] ECDR 3�� 8.28
Nintendo Co Ltd v BigBen Interactive (Joined Cases C-24/16 & 25/16) [2018] Bus LR
1245, [2017] 9 WLUK 402, [2018] ECDR 3�� 16.19, 16.21
Nintendo Co Ltd v Console PC Com Ltd [2011] EWHC 1458 (Ch)�� 3.170; 7.90,
7.91, 7.92
Nintendo Co Ltd v Playables Ltd [2010] EWHC 1932 (Ch), [2010] ECDR 14,
[2010] FSR 36�� 3.168; 7.90, 7.114
Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14�� 2.25; 5.46; 6.33
Noir d’Ivoire SPRL v Home Boutiques Private Ltd Co SPRL [2003] ECDR 29�� 5.27; 6.8
Norowzian v Arks (No 1) [1999] EMLR 57, [1998] FSR 394, (1998) 21 (3)
IPD 21027�� 7.16
Northern Office Microcomputer (Pty) Ltd v Rosenstein [1982] FSR 124
(S Africa S Ct)�� 10.23
Norwich Pharmacal Co v C & E Comrs [1974] AC 133, [1973] 3 WLR 164,
[1973] 2 All ER 943�� 2.74; 3.158;
6.93; 14.76
Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd [2006] EWHC 24 (Ch), [2006] EMLR 14,
[2006] RPC 14; aff ’d [2007] EWCA Civ 219, [2007] Bus LR 1032, [2007]
ECC 21�� 3.6, 3.24, 3.25, 3.28, 3.47, 3.177;
4.39; 7.8, 7.14; 8.11, 8.13
O
O2 Holdings Ltd (formerly O2 Ltd) v Hutchinson 3G Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1656,
[2007] 2 CMLR 15, [2007] RPC 16�� 13.28; 14.116
O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd [2008] ECR I-04231�� 13.29
OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1, [2007] 2 WLR 920�� 10.14, 10.58
OP Solutions Inc v Intellectual Property Network Ld 50 USPQ 2d (SD NY 1999)�� 4.14
OSA – Ochranný svaz autorský pro práva k dílům hudebním os v Léčebné lázně
Mariánské Lázně (Case C-351/12)�� 15.25
Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1191, [2006] Ch 337, [2006] 2
WLR 294�� 8.22
Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd (No 2) [1997] RPC 289, (1997) 20 (3)
IPD 20022�� 9.25; 10.40
Oneida Indian Nation’s Application No 0308259 [2007] EWHC 954 (Pat)�� 12.86, 12.87
Oracle America Inc v Google Inc (unreported, 31 May 2012)�� 4.17, 4.18
Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs-und Zeitschriftenverlag
GmbH & Co KG (Case C-7/97) [1998] ECR I-7791, [1999] 4 CMLR 112,
[1999] CEC 53�� 15.18
Owusu v Jackson (t/a Villa Holidays Bal Inn Villas) (Case C-281/02) [2005] QB 801,
[2005] 2 WLR 942, [2005] ECR I-1383�� 16.6

Table of Cases
xlv
P
PBS PARTNERSHIP / Controlling pensions benefits system (T931/95) [2002]
EPOR 522�� 12.41, 12.44, 12.79,
12.82, 12.90
PSM International plc v Whitehouse [1992] IRLR 279, [1992] FSR 489�� 10.13
Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores España (SGAE) (Case C-467/08)
[2011] ECDR 1, [2011] FSR 17, [2010] ECR I-10055�� 7.79
Page v Wisden (1869) 20 LT 435�� 2.52
Painer (Eva-Maria) v Standard Verlags GmbH (Case C-145/10) [2011] ECDR 13
�� 3.15, 3.36, 3.176; 5.28
Pammer v Reederei Karl Schluter GmbH & Co KG; Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Heller
(Joined Case C-585/08 & C-144/09) [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 888, [2012] Bus
LR 972, [2010] ECR I-12527�� 14.72
Paramount Home Entertainment International Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd
[2013] EWHC 3479 (Ch), [2013] 11 WLUK 310, [2014] ECDR 7�� 7.48
Pari Pharma GmbH v European Medicines Agency (Case T-235/15) (Judgment
5 February 2018)�� 10.74
Parker v Flook 437 US 584 (1978)�� 12.24
Paul (KS) (Printing Machinery) Ltd v Southern Instruments (Communications) &
EP Ellis (Male) (t/a Ellis & Soons) [1964] RPC 118�� 10.16, 10.77
Paymaster (Jamaica) Ltd v Grace Kennedy Remittance Services Ltd [2017] UKPC 40,
[2018] Bus LR 492, [2017] 12 WLUK 226�� 2.32; 10.11
Pearce (Gareth) v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd (Jurisdiction) [1997] Ch 293, [1997] 2
WLR 779, [1997] FSR 641; revs’d in part [2000] Ch 403, [2000] 3 WLR 332,
[1999] FSR 525�� 16.23, 16.24
Peek & Cloppenburg KG v Cassina SpA (Case C-456/06) [2009] Bus LR 149,
[2008] ECR I-2731, [2009] ECDR 9�� 7.60
PepsiCo Inc v Grupo Promer Mon Graphics SA (Case C-281/10P) [2012] FSR 5,
[2011] ECR I-10153�� 8.36
Perry v Truefitt (1842) 49 ER 749, (1842) 5 Beav 66�� 14.82
Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur NRW GmbH (Case C-441/13) [2015] Bus LR 560,
[2015] 1 WLUK 453, [2015] ECDR 10�� 16.26
Pfizer Ltd v Eurofood Link (UK) Ltd [2000] ETMR 896, [2001] FSR 3�� 14.47
Phillips v Eyre (1870–71) LR 6 QB 1�� 16.4
Phillips v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 28, [2013] 1 AC 1, [2013]
FSR 12�� 10.50
Phones 4u Ltd v Phone4u.co.uk Internet Ltd [2005] EWHC 334 (Ch); revs’d [2006]
EWCA Civ 244, [2007] RPC 5, (2006) 103 (23) LSG 32�� 14.98
Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Case C-170/12) [2013] Bus LR 1313, [2013] 10
WLUK 113, [2014] CEC 534�� 16.28
Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson [2018] EWHC 1004 (QB), [2018] 4 WLUK 585�� 13.74
Pitman Training Ltd v Nominet UK [1997–98] Info TLR 177, [1998] ITCLE 17, [1997]
FSR 797�� 14.93
Playboy Enterprises Inc v Calvin Designer Labels 985 F Supp 1220 (ND Cal, 1997)�� 14.47
Playboy Enterprises Inc v Welles 7 F Supp 2d 1098 (SD Cal, 1998)�� 14.47
Plentyoffish Media Inc v Plenty More LLP [2011] EWHC 2568 (Ch), [2012] ECC 15,
[2012] RPC 5�� 16.36, 16.45
Plix Products Ltd v Frank M Winstone (Merchants) [1986] FSR 63�� 2.43
Polydor Ltd v Brown [2005] EWHC 3191 (Ch), (2006) 29 (3) IPD 29021�� 7.54
Polymasc Pharmaceutical plc v Charles [1999] FSR 711�� 10.32

Table of Cases
xlvi
Portakabin Ltd v Primakabin BV (Case C-558/08) [2011] Bus LR 1339, [2010] ECR
I-6963, [2011] CEC 552�� 14.53, 14.58
Potter v Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd (1906) 3 CLR 479�� 16.4
Pozzoli SpA v BDMO SA [2007] EWCA Civ 588, [2007] FSR 37, (2007) 30 (8) IPD
30051�� 11.17
PRESIDENT’S REFERENCE / Computer program exclusion (Case G3/08) [2009]
EPOR 9�� 12.53, 12.93
P-SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v OHIM (Case C-322/02)�� 13.62
Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 1 Mac & G 25�� 10.1
Printers & Finishers Ltd v Holloway (No 2) [1965] 1 WLR 1, [1964] 3 All ER 731,
[1965] RPC 239�� 10.22, 10.24
Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 936, [2008] Bus
LR 801, [2008] FSR 8�� 8.35, 8.43
Programs for computers (G3/08) [2010] EPOR 36�� 12.55
Protecting the Kids the World Over Ltd’s Patent Application [2012] EWHC 2720 (Pat),
[2012] RPC 13�� 12.99
Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd
[2013] UKSC 18, [2013] 2 All ER 852, [2013] RPC 19�� 2.47; 7.69, 7.71, 7.72, 7.75
Q
Quads 4 Kids v Campbell [2006] EWHC 2482 (Ch), [2006] Info TLR 338�� 1.20; 7.130;
8.52
R
R v Department of Health, ex p Source Infomatics Ltd (No 1) [2001] QB 424, [2000]
2 WLR 940, [2001] FSR 8�� 10.9
R v Evans (Wayne) [2017] EWCA Civ 139, [2017] 1 Cr App R (S) 56�� 2.85
R v Gilham (Christopher Paul) [2009] EWCA Crim 2293, [2010] ECDR 5, [2010]
Lloyd’s Rep FC 89�� 7.104, 7.105; 8.6
R v Higgs (Neil Stanley) [2008] EWCA Crim 1324, [2009] 1 WLR 73, [2008]
FSR 34�� 7.90, 7.105
R v Johnstone (Robert Alexander) [2003] UKHL 28, [2003] 1 WLR 1736, [2003]
FSR 42�� 7.106; 13.52
R v M [2017] UKSC 58, [2017] 1 WLR 3006, [2017] Cr App R 30�� 13.53
RTE & ITP v Commission of the European Communities (Joined Cases C-241/91P &
C-242/91P)�� 15.16, 15.20, 15.21, 15.22
R (on the application of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers & Authors) v
Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills (No 2) [2015] EWHC 2041
(Admin), [2015] Bus LR 1435, [2015] RPC 27�� 2.89; 7.78
Radio Taxicabs (London) Ltd (t/a Radio Taxis) v Owner Drivers Radio Taxi Services
Ltd (t/a Dial-a-Cab) [2004] RPC 19, [2002] Masons CLR 29�� 14.99
Ray v Classic FM plc [1998] ECC 488, [1999] ITCLR 256, [1998] FSR 622�� 2.30; 5.1, 5.48
Raytheon Co’s Application [1993] RPC 427�� 12.23, 12.75
Raytheon Co v Comptroller General of Patents, Trade Marks & Designs [2007] EWHC
1230 (Pat), [2008] RPC 3, [2007] Bus LR D98�� 12.91
Really Virtual Co Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents [2012] EWHC 1086 (Pat),
[2013] RPC 3, [2013] Bus LR D32�� 12.2
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc (No 3) [1990] 1 WLR 491, [1990] 1 All
ER 873, [1990] RPC 341�� 7.27; 8.15; 13.44,
13.65; 14.83, 14.86

Table of Cases
xlvii
Redrow Homes Ltd v Betts Bros plc [1999] 1 AC 197, [1998] 2 WLR 198, [1998]
FSR 345�� 2.66
Redwood Tree Services Ltd v Apsey (t/a Redwood Tree Surgeons) [2011]
EWPCC 14�� 14.108
Reed Executive plc v Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 159,
[2004] ETMR 56, [2004] RPC 40�� 14.24
Rees v Melville [1911–1916] MacG CC 168�� 4.6, 4.21
Reha Training Gesellschaft fur Sport und Unfallrehabilitation mbH v v GEMA
(Case C-117/15) [2016] Bus LR 933, [2016] 5 WLUK 696, [2016] 3
CMLR 40�� 2.62; 7.35, 7.36
Research Corpn Techs v Microsoft Corpn 627 F 3d 859 (Fed Cir, 2010)�� 12.23
Research in Motion UK Ltd v Visto Corpn [2008] EWCA Civ 153, [2008] 2 All ER
(Comm) 560, [2008] FSR 20�� 16.13
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc v Yeda Research & Development
Co Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1094, [2007] Bus LR 1, [2007] RPC 9�� 3.97
Roadtech Computer Systems Ltd v Mandata Ltd (Management & Data Services)
[2000] ETMR 970, [2001] EBLR 17�� 14.47
Roberts v Northwest Fixings [1993] FSR 281�� 10.32
Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV (Case C-30/14) [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 455,
[2015] Bus LR 117, [2015] 1 WLUK 181�� 5.63; 6.82
S
SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd (Case C-406/10) [2010] EWHC 1829
(Ch), [2010] ECDR 15, [2010] Info TLR 157; preliminary ruling given [2013]
Bus LR 941, [2012] 3 CMLR 4, [2012] ECDR 22�� 3.61, 3.64, 3.127, 3.143,
3.145; 4.19, 4.31, 4.35,
4.49, 4.50, 4.52, 4.55, 4.57,
4.61, 4.63, 4.66, 4.67
SAS Institute v World Progamming Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1482, [2013] 11 WLUK
538, [2014] RPC 8�� 2.42
SBS Belgium NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auters, Componisten en Uitgevers
(SABAM) (Case C-325/14) [2015] Bus LR 1558, [2015] 11 WLUK 487�� 7.43
Sabel BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport (Case C-251/95) [1997] ECR I-6191,
[1998] 1 CMLR 445, [1998] CEC 315�� 13.18, 13.24; 14.19
Saltman Engineering Co v Campbell Engineering Co (1948) [1963] 3 All ER 413
(Note), (1948) 65 RPC 203�� 10.8
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat), [2013] ECDR 1;
aff ’d [2012] EWCA Civ 1339, [2013] ECDR 2, [2013] FSR 9�� 8.45, 16.18
Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 1430, [2013] EMLR 11,
[2013] FSR 10�� 3.158; 16.18
Saphena Computing Ltd v Allied Collection Agencies Ltd [1995] FSR 616�� 2.29; 3.134
Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc [2005] EWHC 2351 (Ch), [2006] IlPr 8, (2006)
29 (2) IPD 29012�� 16.6
Scandecor Developments AB v Scandecot Marketing AB (Reference to ECJ) [2001]
UKHL 21, [2001] 4 WLUK 96, [2002] FSR 7�� 13.31
Scarlet Extended SA v Societe Belge des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs
SCRL (SABAM) (Case C-70/10) [2012] ECDR 4, 31 BHRC 558, [2011]
ECR I-11519�� 7.132
Schlumberger Holdings Ltd v Electromagnetic Geoservices AS [2010] EWCA Civ 819,
[2010] RPC 33�� 11.17

Table of Cases
xlviii
Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2013] UKSC 16, [2013] 2 All ER 177, [2013]
RPC 16�� 11.46
Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz (Case C-44/17) [2018] Bus LR 1466,
[2018] 6 WLUK 80�� 13.12
Seager v Copydex Ltd (No 2) [1969] 1 WLR 809, [1969] 2 All ER 718, [1969]
FSR 261�� 10.44
Sega Enterprises Ltd v Richards (No 2) [1983] FSR 73�� 3.9
Sepracor Inc v Hoechst Marrion Roussel Ltd [1999] FSR 746, (1999) 22 (4)
IPD 22034�� 11.62; 16.29
Series 5 Software Ltd v Clarke [1996] 1 All ER 853, [1996] CLC 631, [1996]
FSR 273�� 2.70
Shanks v Unilever plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1283, [2011] RPC 12, (2011) 117
BMLR 176 �� 11.28, 11.29
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch 287�� 10.40
Shenzhen Taiden Industrial Co Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks & Designs) (OHIM) (T153/08) [2010] ECR II-2517�� 8.34
Sheraton Corpn of America v Sheraton Motels Ltd [1964] 1 WLUK 724, [1964]
RPC 202�� 14.85
Shetland Times Ltd v Wills 1997 SC 316, 1997 SLT 669, [1997] FSR 604�� 2.18; 7.24
Shoppalotto.com Ltd’s Patent Application (GB 0017772.5) [2005] EWHC 2416 (Pat),
[2006] RPC 7�� 12.73, 12.78
Sieckmann (Ralf) v Deutsches Patent-und Markenamt (Case C-273/00) [2003] Ch 487,
[2003] 3 WLR 424, [2002] ECR I-11737�� 13.9
Sinanide v La Maison Kosmeo (1928) 139 LT 365�� 3.52; 7.24
Singer Manufacturing Ltd v Loog (1880) LR18 Ch D 395�� 14.95, 14.96
Sirdar Rubber Co Ltd v Wallington Weston & Co (1907) 24 RPC 539�� 11.46
Siskina, The, Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board v Distos Compania Naviera
SA [1979] AC 210, [1977] 3 WLR 818, [1977] 3 All ER 803�� 14.76
Sky plc v Skykick UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 943 (Ch), [2018] 4 WLUK 535, [2018]
RPC 12�� 13.16
Smithkline Beecham Ltd v GSKline Ltd [2011] EWHC 169 (Ch)�� 14.97
Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana (SGAE) v Rafael Hotels SA
(Case C-306/05) [2007] Bus LR 521, [2006] ECR I-11519, [2007] ECDR2�� 2.62;
7.37, 7.39, 7.40
Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v Del Corso (Case C-135/10) [2012] Bus LR 1870,
[2013] 2 Costs LO 164, [2012] ECDR 16�� 3.15; 7.39
Société des Produits Nestle SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd
(Cases C-84/17P, C-87/17P & C-95/17P)�� 13.58
Société Française du Radiotéléphone v Union des Producteurs de Cinema
(6 July 2017)�� 14.81
Société Ouest France Multimedia v Société Direct Annonces [2010] ECC 9�� 6.62
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v Ball see Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc v Ball (Application for Summary Judgment) ��
Sony Computer Entertainment Ltd v Peers [2010] EWHC 3053 (Ch)�� 3.171
Sony Corpn of America v Universal City Studios Inc 464 US 417 (1984)�� 3.72; 7.53
Soulier v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication (Case C-301/15) [2016]
11 WLUK 446, [2017] 2 CMLR 9, [2017] CEC 890�� 7.49
South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatscappij ‘De Zeven Provincien’ NV
[1987] AC 24, [1986] 3 WLR 398, [1986] 3 All ER 487�� 14.76
Spain v Council of the EU (Case C-147/13) (Judgment 5 May 2015)�� 11.63

Table of Cases
xlix
Speciality European Pharma Ltd v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2015] EWCA
Civ 54, [2015] 3 All ER 504, [2015] RPC 20�� 15.52
Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 24,
[2012] 1 WLUK 674, [2012] ETMR 17�� 14.73
Spectrum Plus Ltd (in liquidation), Re [2005] UKHL 41, [2005] 2 AC 680, [2005] 3
WLR 58�� 12.83
Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd (The Spiliada) [1987] AC 460�� 16.6
Starbuck v Patsystems (UK) Ltd [2017] EWHC 397 (IPEC), [2017] 3
WLUK 193�� 3.44, 3.45
Starbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc [2013] EWHC 3074 (Ch),
[2013] WLUK 71, [2013] FSR 29; aff ’d [2013] EWCA Civ 1465, [2013] 11
WLUK 442, [2014] ECC 4; aff ’d [2015] UKSC 31, [2015] 1 WLR 2628, [2015]
FSR 29�� 13.63; 14.84; 16.47
State Street Bank & Trust Co v Signature Financial Group 149 F 3d 1368
(Fed Cir, 1998) �� 12.20, 12.22
Stena Rederi AB v Irish Ferries Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 214, [2003] RPC 37, (2003)
26 (5) IPD 26028�� 11.43
Stichting Brein v Wullums (t/a Filmspeler) (Case C-527/15) [2017] Bus LR 1816,
[2017] 4 WLUK 447, [2017] 3 CMLR 30�� 2.62; 7.36
Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV (Case C-610/15) [2017] Bus LR 1899, [2017] 6 WLUK 237,
[2018] CEC 191�� 7.36
Stichting de Thuiskopie v Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH (Case C-462/09) [2011] 3
CMLR 28, [2012] CEC 183, [2011] ECR I-05331�� 7.80
Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB (Case C-466/12) [2014] Bus LR 259, [2014] 2 WLUK 451,
[2014] 3 CMLR 4�� 7.36, 7.44
Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks [2008]
EWCA Civ 1066, [2009] Bus LR 607, [2009] RPC 1�� 12.92, 12.94,
12.97, 12.98, 12.99
T
Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 38, [2013] 1 WLR 2151, [2013]
EMLR 14�� 14.113, 14.114
Tamiz v United Kingdom (Application 3877/14) [2017] 10 WLUK 270, [2018]
EMLR 6�� 14.114
Taittinger SA v Allbev Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 75, [1993] 2 CMLR 741, [1993]
FSR 641�� 7.27; 13.67; 14.35, 14.86
Tavener Rutledge Ltd v Trexapalm Ltd [1975] 7 WLUK 166, [1975] FSR 479,
[1977] RPC 275�� 13.67
Tea Board v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Cases C-673/15P–
C-676/15P) [2018] Bus LR 1095, [2017] 9 WLUK 304, [2018] ETMR 1�� 13.56
Tech 21 UK Ltd v Logitech SA [2015] EWHC 2614 (Ch), [2015] Bus LR 1276,
[2016] FSR 14�� 16.16
Technip France SA’s Patent Application sub nom Rockwater Ltd v Coflexip SA
[2004] EWCA Civ 381, [2004] RPC 46, (2004) 27 (7) IPD 27066�� 11.15
Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd v Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Ltd [1971] FSR 188,
[1972] RPC 346�� 11.15
Technomed Ltd v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd [2017] EWHC 2142 (Pat),
[2017] 8 WLUK 268, [2018] FSR 8�� 1.37; 3.29, 3.63; 5.14,
5.21, 5.35, 5.36; 6.21, 6.70

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

CHAPTER II
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EDUCATION
(PROVISION OF MEALS) ACT
We propose in this chapter to describe the manner in which the
Local Education Authorities are administering the Act of 1906. We
shall see that the adoption of the Act has been by no means
universal and that in many towns provision is still made by voluntary
agencies. Where the Act has been put in force we shall find the
greatest diversity of practice in such matters as the selection of the
children, the dietary provided and the manner in which the meals
are served. One Local Authority will construe its duties under the Act
in the narrowest sense, cutting down the number of children to be
fed to the minimum, and serving the meals with the least possible
expense. Another authority will look on the school meal as a
valuable means for improving the physique of its scholars; it will
endeavour to secure that all children who are underfed shall be
given school meals; the dietary will be carefully planned, while, in
the matter of the service of the meals, the aim will be to make these
in every way educational. We shall see that meals are as a rule given
only during term-time, holiday feeding out of rates being held to be
illegal, while many authorities limit their operations to the winter
months. Most authorities have confined their provision almost
entirely to necessitous children, the plan of providing meals as a
matter of convenience for children of parents who are at work all
day or are otherwise prevented from preparing a midday meal, and
who would be able and willing to pay for school dinners, finding but
little favour. We shall describe the arrangements made in the Special
Schools for defective children, where a dinner is provided either for

all children attending the school or for all those who care to stay,
and in the Day Industrial Schools, where the provision of three
meals a day for all is the rule. We shall discuss the extent to which
the provision of meals by the Local Education Authority overlaps the
relief given by the Poor Law Guardians. Finally we shall touch upon
the question of underfeeding in the rural districts, where the
problem is little less urgent than in the towns.

(a)—The Adoption of the Act.
The Provision of Meals Act came into force on December 21, 1906.
As we have seen, it was merely permissive and its adoption was,
therefore, only gradual.
[176]
Many Local Education Authorities
contented themselves with making arrangements with voluntary
agencies, the Education Committee continuing the already common
practice of providing accommodation and apparatus, and the
voluntary society providing as hitherto funds for the food. Thus, at
Hull, the Education Authority co-operated with the Hull School
Children's Help Society, which had been founded in 1885 for the
provision of free meals. This arrangement was continued till 1908,
when the Society's funds were exhausted and recourse was had to
the rates.
[177]
At Scarborough, the Amicable Society, which had been
founded in 1729 "for clothing and educating the children of the poor
of Scarborough," arranged with the Education Authority that the
provision of meals should be organised through a Joint Committee of
the two bodies.
[178]
At Liverpool, where the provision of meals had
been undertaken since the early part of 1906, before the Act was
passed, by a voluntary committee consisting of members of the
Education Committee, the Central Relief Society, the Guardians and
others, this system was continued for some years. In spite of
strenuous opposition in 1908 from the Labour party and the local
Fabian Society, who complained that the numbers fed were far
below the number in need of food, and that no proper attempt was
made to ascertain the extent of the need, a special committee
appointed by the Education Committee to investigate the whole
question reported that the existing voluntary system was adequate.
It was not till November, 1909, that the Education Committee
resolved that, "after full consideration of the circumstances and after
having regard to the fact that it has been necessary to call upon the
general public on two occasions during each year for subscriptions to

the funds, the Committee cannot but conclude that the time has
now come when the provisions of the Education (Provision of Meals)
Act, 1906, should be put into force, and, therefore, though with
great reluctance," they recommended that application be made to
the Board of Education for power to levy a rate.
[179]
Leicester, perhaps, furnishes the most notable example of the
survival of the voluntary principle. In 1906, when the Provision of
Meals Bill was before Parliament, the Town Council appears to have
been in favour of it. After the Act was passed, however, the Leicester
branch of the Charity Organisation Society opposed its adoption. At a
conference between representatives of the Charity Organisation
Society and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, a scheme was formulated for administering the Act from
voluntary funds. The scheme was accepted by the Town Council, and
the formation of the Children's Aid Association was the result.
[180]
This body consists chiefly of members of the Charity Organisation
Society and of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children, with a small minority representing the Education
Committee. In spite of considerable opposition from the Labour
party, who demand that the Act shall be put into force, meals are
still provided by this Association out of voluntary funds.
[181]
This delay on the part of the Local Authorities in towns where, it was
asserted, it was notorious that children suffered from want of food,
[182]
led to an attempt to make the School Medical Officer responsible
for determining whether or not it was necessary to put the Act in
force. In December, 1908, a Bill was introduced by the Labour party
with the object of providing that, when requested by the Education
Committee, by a majority of the managers, or by the head teachers,
the Local Authority should provide for the medical inspection of the
children for the purpose of determining whether they were suffering
from insufficient or improper food; if the medical inspector reported
that the children were so suffering, the Local Authority should be
obliged to provide food. The Bill was not proceeded with, and the
same fate befell four similar Bills introduced within the next five
years.
[183]

In 1911-1912, out of 322 Local Education Authorities in England and
Wales, 131 were returned as making some provision for the feeding
of school children (i.e. 13 counties, including London, 57 County
Boroughs, 35 Boroughs and 26 Urban Districts).
[184]
Of these 95
were spending rates on the provision of food; 19 were spending
rates on administrative charges only (accommodation, apparatus,
etc.), the cost of food being borne by voluntary funds; whilst in the
remaining 17 areas
[185]
the cost of both food and administration was
met by voluntary contributions.
The steady decrease in the amount derived from voluntary
contributions, and the increase in rates are shown by the following
table :—
[186]
Rates
£
Voluntary
Contribution
£
Miscellaneous
sources
(contributions
from parents,
Poor Law
Guardians,
etc.) £
Total.
For the
year
1908-9
67,524 17,831 335 85,690
For the
year
1909-10
125,372 9,813 906 136,091
For the
year
1910-11
140,875 7,537 1,370 149,782
For the
year
1911-12
151,763 3,064 2,292 157,127
The total number of children fed is given in the returns for 1911 as
124,685.
[187]
This, however, does not include a few counties and

towns which did not return the number fed during the year. In most
of these areas the number fed is very small, but at Barnsley the
number attending daily was about 2,917, and in London the highest
number fed in any one week during the year was 44,983. If we take
these figures as representing roughly between two-fifths and one
half of the total number of children who were fed at some time or
other during the year, we get a total of about 230,000,
[188]
out of a
total school population of 5,357,567.
[189]
In most towns where the Act has been adopted the amount spent
on food is well within the limit of the halfpenny rate. In 1911-12,
only Bradford and Stoke-on-Trent exceeded the limit, the latter (by
an inconsiderable sum) owing to the coal strike. At Bradford the rate
has almost from the first been annually exceeded by a considerable
amount.
[190]
This excess is due partly to the numbers fed (a large
proportion of the children receiving breakfasts as well as dinners),
partly to the fact that the meals are continued throughout the
holidays. The Local Government Board Auditor has regularly
surcharged the excess expenditure, but the Finance Committee
defrays it out of the Corporation trading profits, which are not
subject to the Local Government Board audit.
The limitation of the rate has in some towns undoubtedly restricted
operations. In 1909, for instance, the Workington Education
Committee were reluctantly obliged, owing to the exhaustion of the
funds raised by the halfpenny rate, to stop the meals at a time of
great distress.
[191]
At East Ham, the product of a halfpenny rate not
being sufficient for a whole year, meals can only be given during the
winter months.
[192]
We may note that the power of the Local Education Authorities to
provide food for necessitous children is not limited to their powers
under the Provision of Meals Act. By the Education Act of 1902
grants may be given for the maintenance of children at Secondary
Schools. At Bradford, at any rate, in quite a number of cases this
grant is earmarked for providing school meals.
[193]
More important is
the power to provide three meals daily for all children attending Day

Industrial Schools. These children are drawn very largely from the
class to whom free meals would have to be given if they were
attending the ordinary elementary schools.
[194]
Again, necessitous
children who are physically or mentally defective can receive meals
at the Special Schools, and the cost of the food (and other
expenses) can be charged to the Special Schools account. Thus, at
Liverpool, dinner is provided for all defective children, this provision
having been undertaken deliberately as part of the school curriculum
long before the Provision of Meals Act was passed. The class of
physically defective children for whom Special Schools can be
provided include not only cripples, but all children who are certified
by a doctor to be "by reason of ... physical defect ... incapable of
receiving proper benefit from the instruction in the ordinary public
elementary schools."
[195]
This wide definition enables the School
Medical Officer to send to the Open Air Schools, which several Local
Authorities have established, and at which one or more meals a day
are provided, not only children suffering from definite diseases, but
also those who are underfed, anæmic and generally debilitated, to
whom the fresh air, healthy life and regular, wholesome meals prove
an inestimable boon.

(b)—Canteen Committees, their constitution and
functions.
The arrangements for carrying out the Provision of Meals Act are
usually in the hands of a Committee called variously the School
Canteen Committee, the Children's Care Committee, the Underfed
Children's Meals Committee, or, as at Leicester, the Children's Aid
Association. The constitution of this Committee varies in different
towns. Sometimes it is composed entirely of members of the
Education Committee.
[196]
Sometimes outside bodies, such as Boards
of Guardians and voluntary agencies, are represented upon it. Thus
at Crewe the Children's Care Committee consists of representatives
of the Local Education Authority, teachers, Guardians and various
voluntary societies.
[197]
At Leicester the members of the Education
Committee are in the minority, the Children's Aid Association being
composed chiefly of members of the Charity Organisation Society
and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.
Elsewhere the Committee may be composed entirely, or almost
entirely, of voluntary workers. Thus at Leeds, where all the members
are women, all, except the Chairman and Vice-chairman, who are
members of the Education Committee, are voluntary workers; two
Inspectors attend the meetings and carry recommendations to the
Education Committee, but they do not vote. At Bury St. Edmunds,
where the Committee is also composed of women members, the
only representative of the Education Committee is the official who
holds the post of Borough Treasurer and Secretary to the Education
Committee. At Bournemouth the schools are grouped under four
District Care Committees, composed of voluntary workers nominated
by the School Managers, and of representatives of the head
teachers, the School Attendance Officers being ex officio members.
These District Care Committees are controlled by a Central Care
Committee, composed partly of members of the Education

Committee, and partly of co-opted members. The School Medical
Officer here, as in some other towns, is an ex officio member.
[198]
The functions of the Canteen Committee also vary in different towns.
Sometimes, as at Bradford, all the arrangements for the
management of the centres and the decision as to which children
shall be fed are in the hands of the Committee. At Leeds the
Committee has no executive power, its functions being limited to
making recommendations to the Education Committee as to the
management of the dining centres. At Bury St. Edmunds each
member of the Committee is responsible for one school, making
arrangements with caterers for the feeding of the children and
visiting the homes. This visiting of the homes is rarely, if ever,
undertaken by members of the Canteen Committee, unless it is
composed of voluntary workers.

(c)—The Selection of the Children.
In the selection of the children who are to receive school meals two
methods may be adopted. The selection may be based either on the
physical condition of the child or on the economic circumstances of
the family. The majority of the children selected will, of course, be
the same whichever method is adopted, since the child will generally
be found to be under-nourished if the family income is inadequate,
and vice versa; but there are some children who, although the family
income is comparatively good, are yet, for some cause or other,
underfed, and these will be excluded if the "poverty test" is the only
criterion used. From the first the Board of Education has urged that
the "physical test" should be used as well as the "poverty test." The
administration of the Provision of Meals Act should be carried on in
the closest co-operation with the School Medical Service.
[199]
The
School Medical Officer should approve the dietary, he should
supervise the quality, quantity, cooking and service of the food and
should inspect the feeding centres.
[200]
In the selection of the
children he should take an important part. Not only should he
recommend for school meals all cases of bad or insufficient nutrition
observed in the course of medical inspection. "The end to be aimed
at," writes Sir George Newman, "is that all children admitted to the
meals should be medically examined by the School Medical Officer
either before, or as soon as possible after, admission."
[201]
That is to
say, the Provision of Meals Act should not be considered primarily as
a measure for the relief of distress; "the physical and mental well-
being of [the] children ... should be regarded as the principal object
to be kept in view."
[202]
Very few authorities have made any attempt to select the children
primarily or even to any great extent on the "physical test." In
Brighton the plan has perhaps been tried with more thoroughness
than in any other town. When, in 1907, the Education Committee

undertook the provision of meals in association with the Voluntary
Canteen Committee, it was resolved that "the term 'underfed' ...
should be held to apply distinctively to those scholars who, by
reason of more or less continuous antecedent underfeeding, are
physically below a certain specified standard of size and weight.
These cases, which must of course be the first consideration of any
feeding scheme, can only be scientifically detected by a detailed
system of medical weighing and examination, and when so detected
should be dealt with in accordance with medical advice."
[203]
Accordingly all the children for whom an application for free meals is
made are weighed and measured, and the Canteen Committee,
when deciding whether any particular child shall be fed or not, has
before it this report as to the child's physical condition. Whether the
meals are supplied free depends on the economic circumstances of
the family. If the child needs meals on medical grounds but the
income is adequate, a circular is sent to the parent warning him of
the child's condition. Sometimes the parent will be willing for meals
to be supplied on payment of the cost. If the parent refuses to pay,
meals are not granted, but the name of the child is placed on a
special list for observation.
[204]
Roughly about fifty per cent. of the
children are fed solely on economic grounds and fifty per cent. on
medical grounds.
[205]
At Heston and Isleworth, the Canteen Sub-Committee decided in
1911 to obtain from the School Medical Officer a report on the state
of each child before determining whether it required school meals.
[206]
At Lancaster also all children who are recommended for free
meals are seen by the School Medical Officer.
[207]
But these cases are exceptional. In 1909 "the number of Local
Education Authorities who left the final selection in the hands of the
School Medical Officer, or acted exclusively upon his
recommendation or required every application to be endorsed by
him," was, so far as the information of the Board of Education
extended, less than a dozen.
[208]
In 1911 Sir George Newman writes,
"it is true that in the majority of cases the School Medical Officer
takes some part ... in the work connected with the provision of

meals, but the number of cases in which he exercises all the
functions ... appropriately devolving upon him are very few indeed."
[209]
In the great majority of towns, though the School Medical
Officer may recommend for school meals children whom he finds
suffering from malnutrition in the course of medical inspection, the
greater number of children are selected on the "poverty test."
As a rule the primary selection is made by the teachers, either on
their own initiative or on receiving requests from the parents. The
School Nurse, the Attendance Officer or perhaps a member of the
local Guild of Help may also recommend cases.
Sometimes a personal application by the parent at the Education
Offices or before the Canteen Committee is insisted on. Thus at
Manchester the parents have to make application either at the
Education Offices or at any of the district centres, of which there are
twenty-four, situated in different parts of the town, and open at
convenient hours. The teachers can advise children, whom they
consider to be in need of food, to tell their parents to apply, but they
take no further part in the selection of the children. At West Ham
also the parents have to apply at the Public Hall or Education Office.
The section of the Act dealing with repayment is read to the
applicant, who then decides whether or not he wishes his children to
be fed.
[210]
On the parent's signing a form (by which he agrees to
repay the cost of meals when he gets into work
[211]
), tickets are
issued for a week, pending enquiry. The parent is expected to send a
note to the head teacher each day to say that he or she still wishes
the child to be fed.
[212]
This personal application has to be renewed
every month. The teachers are allowed to give urgency tickets for
three meals, but if the parents fail to apply the meals have to be
discontinued. At Erith "no breakfasts are supplied till the parents
have registered at the Distress Committee (if eligible), or have made
personal application there, or at the Education Office."
[213]
At
Leicester, again, the parent has to make personal application at the
office of the Canteen Committee, and this application has to be
renewed every month. At Birmingham, except in special cases, the
parent has to attend the meeting of the Committee; if he fails to

appear, after being given a second chance, the child, who has
meanwhile been temporarily receiving the meals, is removed from
the feeding list.
[214]
The primary selection of the children having been made, by
whatever method, enquiry is then made into the home
circumstances of the family. The object of this enquiry is or should
be twofold: to ascertain the resources of the family, so as to
determine whether the parents are able to provide adequate food for
the child or not, and to find out whether help is needed in any other
direction, and by friendly advice to improve the conditions of the
home. We shall discuss later the great advantages to be obtained
from the employment of voluntary workers for the purpose of these
friendly home visits, as distinct from the duty of making enquiries.
[215]
Here it is sufficient to note that very few Education Authorities
have made use of their services at all.
[216]
The most notable example
is, of course, furnished by the London Care Committees. A
somewhat similar system has been adopted at Bournemouth. Here,
as we have seen, the schools have been divided into four groups,
and a Care Committee appointed for each. The members investigate
the circumstances of children who are alleged to be in want of food
and report to their Committee, which thereupon decides whether or
not the children shall receive free meals. At Liverpool a tentative
effort has been made in the same direction. Care Committees,
managed by the different settlements, have for some years been
attached to some half-dozen schools, but their position is rather
indefinite. The enquiries are made by the School Attendance
Officers, but the Education Committee asks the Care Committee for
reports on special cases. At one school the Care Committee appears
to visit all the cases. A wider scheme for the establishment of a
system of Care Committees is at the present time (1913) under
consideration. At Brighton also, where Care Committees have been
appointed, mainly for the purpose of finding employment and
generally supervising the children when they leave school, a Care
visitor is sometimes asked to supplement the enquiries of the School
Attendance Officers in doubtful cases where further investigation is

needed. At Leicester the enquiries are made by a paid investigator
appointed by the Children's Aid Association, subsequent friendly
visits being paid by voluntary workers.
[217]
In most towns, however,
the work of enquiry is undertaken solely by the School Attendance
Officers.
[218]
The thoroughness of the investigation varies considerably in different
towns. The parent's statements as to the amount of wages earned
are in some cases checked by enquiries from the employers. At
Birmingham the wages are always thus verified where the worker is
employed by one firm regularly. At Bradford the wages are verified
except when the applicants are working on their own account, for
instance hawking, when it is clearly impossible. Generally enquiry is
made from the employer as to the wages of the head of the house
only, but at Leeds and at Leicester the wages of all earning members
of the family are verified. At Leicester in doubtful cases enquiries
may be made from the employer as often as once a week. In other
towns, as at Stoke and York, where the current rates of wages are
well known, wages are only verified when there is any doubt as to
the parent's statement. At Bootle little attempt is made to verify the
information given by the parents. Here the enquiries are made—so
far as they can be said to be made at all—by the teachers. The help
of the Attendance Officer can be asked in difficult cases, but this
appears to be seldom done. The teachers naturally have no time to
visit the homes, and the enquiry generally resolves itself into a form
being given to the child for its parent to fill up. The parents are
asked to state the rent, the number in the family and the total
weekly income, taking the average for four weeks. When one
considers the difficulty normally experienced in filling up forms
correctly, one can readily imagine that the information thus obtained
is practically valueless. Where the answers are unintelligible—an
occurrence by no means rare to judge from the few specimens of
case papers which we have seen—the information may be
supplemented by questioning the children.
Often urgency tickets can be issued by the teachers, pending
enquiries, as at Bradford, Birmingham, Bootle and Liverpool. At

Birkenhead the teacher can only report the need for meals, but the
enquiries only take two or three days. At Leeds we were told that a
week or ten days generally elapses between the time of application
and the child's being placed on the list, with the result that in some
cases the most urgent need is passed. It is true that the head
teachers can secure a child's being placed immediately on the list by
writing specially to the Education Office, but to do this every time
would involve a considerable expenditure on postage, which is not
refunded.
When investigation has been made into the home circumstances, the
decision as to whether or no the child shall be fed is made generally
by the Canteen Committee or by a small sub-committee of this
Committee, or perhaps by the Chairman.
[219]
Sometimes the
responsibility rests with the Secretary of the Education Committee or
some other official, as at Acton and Leeds. At Bournemouth the
cases are decided by the District Care Committees, which are
composed of voluntary workers and teachers. At Bootle the decision
appears to rest entirely in the teachers' hands.
The decision is based on a consideration of the family income. Many
authorities have adopted a scale. At Birmingham meals are granted
if the income per head, after rent is deducted, does not exceed 2s.
9d. in winter or 2s. 6d. in summer.
[220]
In Bootle the income limit, in
summer and winter alike, is 3s. 6d. for an adult and 2s. 6d. for each
child under 14.
[221]
When we consider, however, the slipshod method
of enquiry pursued at Bootle, we cannot attach much importance to
the existence on paper of this scale. At Bradford dinners are given if
the income does not exceed 3s. per head; if the income is less than
2s., breakfasts also are given. This scale is taken only as a rough
criterion of the needs of the family. Special circumstances are taken
into account, such as the size of the family, sickness, old debts, etc.
And where the circumstances of the family are slightly above the
point at which free meals may be given, the parents are often
allowed to receive them on paying 1/2d. or 1d. towards the cost. At
Leeds, on the other hand, the scale, which is a low one (2s. in
winter and 1s. 6d. in summer) is, we are informed, rigidly observed.

No regard is paid to the circumstances of the family. As a rule,
directly the family income rises above the limit, the child's dinners
are stopped, no matter how much debt has to be paid off. A delicate
child who needed feeding or an underfed neglected child would not
be fed if the income was above the limit. At Liverpool the scale is 2s.
per head; at Stoke it is 2s. 6d.; at Brighton it is 3s. per adult, two
children being reckoned as one adult. In all these towns the limit is
not a hard and fast one, regard being paid to any special
circumstances. At Manchester a sliding scale has been adopted. If
there are five or more in the family the limit is 2s. 6d. per head, if
there are only three or four 2s. 9d. is allowed, while if there are only
one or two 3s. is allowed.
[222]
At Salford the limit is 10s. per week for
two persons, and 2s. extra for each additional member of the family,
rent not being deducted. In other towns, as at Birkenhead,
Bournemouth, Leicester and West Ham, there is no fixed scale, each
case being decided on its merits.
As a rule the cases are revised about once a month. Sometimes
chronic cases will be continued for two or three months at a time, as
at Liverpool. At York the cases are revised only twice a year. At the
beginning of the winter the head teachers send in lists of children
whom they consider to be necessitous. These children (if the Cases
Selection Sub-Committee decide to feed them) remain on the
feeding list till the following April, when the head teachers are asked
to send in a list of children who they consider need not receive
meals during the summer. The Attendance Officers visit again and
the cases are revised by the Committee. This method is said to be
satisfactory as, though officially the cases are revised so seldom,
practically the circumstances are known, since the Attendance
Officers regularly visit the homes in the course of their ordinary work
and the Chairman of the Canteen Committee knows many of the
children intimately. At Bootle, where, as we have seen, the decision
as to which children shall be fed is practically in the hands of the
teachers, there seems to be no system of revising the cases, and the
tendency is for a child who is once put on the feeding list to remain
on it till the meals are discontinued in the summer, unless the

parents voluntarily withdraw the child on an improvement in the
home circumstances.
Without discussing here the question whether it is possible to devise
any system of selection which can be satisfactory, we may note
some of the disadvantages of the methods at present in use. In the
first place, since the selection is made in the main through the
teachers, it necessarily follows that the numbers fed in any particular
school depend very largely on the attitude taken by the head
teachers. As a general rule the teachers are keenly interested in the
physical welfare of their children, and anxious to do everything in
their power which may promote it; but some teachers are opposed
to the provision of meals, feeling that too much is done for the
children; others, again, consider their schools "superior," and do not
like their children to go to free meals. Constantly one finds an
astonishing disproportion between the numbers fed at two adjacent
schools, drawing their children from the same locality. It is true that
the character of two schools, within a stone's throw of each other,
may vary in a curious way, one attracting a more prosperous class of
children—perhaps because of the personality of the teacher, better
buildings, or some other cause—but this would not account for all
the difference. At Bootle, for instance, it was reported, "there is
apparently an absence of uniformity in assessing the needs of the
children; for in the six schools of the poorest neighbourhoods it is
found that of the number on the rolls the percentage of scheduled
children varies from 6 per cent. to 34 per cent., and that in two
schools of almost identical character, in one case 10 per cent. of the
children are returned as needing daily breakfasts, and in the other
34 per cent."
[223]
Where the teachers are anxious to place all
apparently underfed children on the feeding list, pressure is not
infrequently exercised by the Education Authority to induce them to
keep down the numbers.
When an application by the parent is obligatory, there is cause for
very grave doubt whether the provision of meals reaches all for
whom it is intended. Miss Winder has shown that, at Birmingham,
out of 22,753 children for whom applications were received during

the three years 1909-11, 4,700 were not fed because the parent
failed to appear before the Committee. She investigated the
circumstances of twenty-eight of these families and came to the
conclusion that, "although the small number of families investigated
cannot justify an absolutely positive assertion, I think it may fairly be
concluded that, on the whole, they are representative of most of the
families whose applications are not granted, and that the home
circumstances of these families are much the same as those of the
families whose applications have been granted."
[224]
This is the
impression gained from enquiries at other towns. At West Ham it is
clear that there are children who need the meals, but do not get
them because their parents will not apply. The number of "missed"
cases does not appear to be large, for the Act is administered in a
sympathetic spirit, the Superintendent of Visitors impressing on the
Attendance Officers that they should bring to his notice any case
where the children appear to be suffering from lack of food. But
there are cases where the parents, though they will take the urgency
tickets for three meals which the teachers can give them, will take
no further action. At one school the headmaster pointed out two
boys who looked obviously in need of food and attention generally,
but whose father, though out of work, would not apply. In another
case he had used his discretion and kept two boys on the list for a
month in spite of their parents' failure to renew their application, but
he felt obliged at last to take them off though he considered that
they still needed the meals. In such cases the Attendance Officers
are supposed to visit the homes to find out the cause of the
children's underfed condition, and to urge the parents, if necessary,
to make application for school meals, but this course does not seem
to be by any means always pursued.
At Leicester again, nothing appears to be done in those cases where
the child needs food but the parent refuses to apply. And such cases
appear to be frequent. We were told by the vicar of a very poor
parish that numbers of the parents would not make the necessary
application. This evidence seems to be borne out by a comparison of
the numbers of cases helped by the Distress Committee and the

Canteen Committee. In 1910, for instance, it was found that on
September 30, 607 married men and widowers, having 1,145
children wholly, and 214 partly, dependent upon them, were
registered at the Labour Bureau as unemployed.
[225]
These numbers
were, of course, not a complete index of the unemployment in the
town. But, turning to the report of the Canteen Committee, we find
that on the same date only 105 children were being helped.
[226]
The
great discrepancy between these figures seems to point to the fact
that the Canteen Committee had not discovered all the cases of
children who were suffering from want of food.
The failure of the parents to apply may in some cases be due to
laziness and disregard for their children's welfare. Or it may be that
they are too sensitive to ask for help. Or again it may be difficult or
impossible for them to attend at the time named. The hour is usually
fixed so as to be that most convenient for the parents, but it is
impossible, of course, to fix a time which will suit all. At Birmingham
cases have even occurred "where the father has been obliged to pay
tram fares in order to arrive in time to prove his inability to feed his
children"!
[227]
But even if the parent is not obliged to appear in person, but may
send an application by note or verbal message to the teacher, there
are still "missed" cases. It is notorious that many parents are too
proud to let their need be known; in such cases, as teachers have
frequently told us, it may be a considerable time before it is
discovered that the child is suffering from want of food; and when
the discovery is made there is frequently difficulty in inducing the
parents to send the child, or in inducing the child itself to go, to the
school meals. There still seems to exist, in certain districts at any
rate, an idea that the provision of meals is Poor Law Relief, and
parents consequently shrink from applying. Moreover, it is not
generally recognised that the provision of school meals is by no
means universally known to the parents. The School Medical Officer
for Leicester reports that "in certain cases it was a matter for regret
that the families had not received help earlier by personally applying
for assistance. Ignorance of the existence of the Canteen Committee

was given as the reason for non-application."
[228]
And we have
ourselves been told in other towns of cases where the children were
suffering from want of food, but were not receiving school meals
because the parents were unaware that they could be obtained.
The enquiries into the home circumstances undoubtedly exercise a
deterrent influence—to what extent depends on the manner of the
particular individual who makes the enquiries—both with the more
independent parent who resents the investigator's visit, and with the
criminal and semi-criminal parent whose record does not bear close
investigation. Thus the headmaster of a school in one of the worst
districts of Liverpool told us that numbers of the boys were in need
of food but the parents would not submit to the necessary enquiries
and consequently meals were not granted. At Leicester, the
searching enquiries made by the Canteen Committee, which, it must
be remembered, is practically a department of the Charity
Organisation Society, coupled with the insistence on an application
by the parent in person, result, as we have seen, in numbers of
underfed children remaining underfed.
Where the Education Authority has adopted a scale of income on
which to base the decision as to which children shall be fed, this
scale is frequently below, and in some cases very considerably
below, the minimum amount which has been shown to be necessary
for expenditure on food.
[229]
Where the scale is rigidly adhered to,
two classes of children are excluded altogether, those who are
underfed through the neglect of their parents to provide for them
though able to do so, and those cases where the family income may
be sufficient to meet normal calls but where, owing to illness or the
delicacy of the children or other special circumstances, extra
nourishment is required.
To sum up, we find as between town and town, and even as
between school and school in the same town, a great want of
uniformity in selecting the children to be fed. Where the Education
Authority has determined that all its underfed children shall be
provided for, the child's need being the paramount consideration,

undiscovered cases of underfeeding are reduced to a minimum.
Where, on the contrary, enquiries are carried out in a deterrent
manner, or the parent is made to apply in person for the meals, or
the selection is based on a rigid application of a scale, there is
reason to fear that considerable numbers of children are, and
remain, "unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of
the education provided for them."

(d)—The Preparation and Service of the Meals.
(i) The Time of the Meal.
There are considerable differences of opinion as to what kind of
meal should be given. Many Local Authorities prefer breakfast. It is
argued that when no breakfast is forthcoming at home the interval
between the meal the previous evening and the midday dinner is too
long, and that it is cruel to expect the child to attend morning
school, when the heaviest work of the day is done, without a meal,
especially in the cold winter months. By midday the parents,
especially in districts where there is much casual labour, may have
earned enough to provide some sort of a meal. But the arguments in
favour of breakfast—as the sole meal provided—are largely based
not so much on the child's physical needs as on the moral effect
produced both on the child and the parent. The provision of
breakfast furnishes a test of need. The meal is not so popular as
dinner, and will only attract those who are really hungry.
[230]
Co-
operation on the part of the mother is demanded, since she must
get up early to see the children are dressed in time. Moreover, the
provision of breakfast does not act as an inducement to the mother
to go out to work, as it is feared the provision of dinner may.
The arguments seem to us overwhelmingly in favour of dinner. The
provision of a midday meal may possibly encourage mothers to go
out to work, though it is exceedingly difficult to trace such a result to
any great extent. But on the other hand there are numbers of cases
already where the mothers are forced, by stress of circumstances, to
be the breadwinners and are obliged to leave home all day, or, if
they come home for the dinner hour, have no time to prepare a
proper meal. The children will either get a piece of bread, or will be
given coppers to buy their own dinner; in either case the meal will

be equally unsatisfactory. Possibly the children will go dinnerless
altogether, and the afternoon's lessons will then be a serious tax on
their brains. The attendance at breakfasts is always less than at
dinner.
[231]
The breakfast acts, that is to say, as a successful "test."
But this means that many children, either because their mothers are
too lazy to get them dressed early, or because they are too lazy
themselves, miss the meals, though they are admittedly in need of
them.
We do not wish to under-estimate the importance of the moral
aspect of the question. It is essential that co-operation on the part
of the mother should be demanded. But the child's need must be the
first consideration. The laziness of the children, be it noted, is
frequently not entirely their own fault; the drowsiness in the morning
may be due to the fact that they have slept all night in a crowded
room and stuffy atmosphere. Till the deep-rooted objection to open
windows at night can be overcome, this will continue to be the case.
For this reason too, the children will often have little appetite for
breakfast.
Physiologically, again, dinner appears to be the better meal since it
contains a greater quantity of the elements which are lacking in the
ordinary home dietary of the child. Thus in the feeding experiment
at Bradford in 1907,
[232]
the porridge breakfast, the most satisfactory
kind of breakfast that can be supplied from the food value point of
view, contained a proteid value of 19 grammes, and a fat value of 20
grammes. The dinners contained, on an average, 29 grammes of
proteid and 18 grammes of fat. Thus the combined proteid and fat
value of the breakfasts and dinners was respectively 39 and 47
grammes.
[233]
Moreover, the gain in point of cheapness to be derived
from provision on a large scale is much greater relatively in the case
of dinners than in the case of breakfasts.
About 27 per cent. of the Local Authorities give breakfasts only, and
about 45 per cent. dinners only, the remainder giving both meals.
[234]
In the last-named case, dinners may be given in some schools and
breakfasts in others, as at Southampton and York. At Bradford

dinner is given to all the children on the feeding list, the most
necessitous receiving breakfast as well.
[235]
At West Ham all the
children receive both meals. At Bootle, where till a few years ago
only breakfasts were given, it was found that this provision was
inadequate to meet the needs of many necessitous children.
[236]
The
expense and the practical difficulties in the way of providing a proper
dinner led the Education Committee to adopt a simpler method,
namely, that of increasing the quantity of food supplied for
breakfasts, any overplus being given at midday at the discretion of
the teachers as an extra meal to children who would otherwise go
dinnerless.
[237]
(ii) The Dietary.
Taking into consideration the fact that with a large number of
elementary school children bread and tea form the chief elements in
the home diet, it is of the greatest importance that the school meal
should be planned so as to contain a good proportion of the
ingredients which are lacking at home.
Whatever views may be held as to the amount of proteid food that is
necessary for adults, it is not disputed that in the case of children
the more expensive forms are necessary because the growth of the
body depends entirely upon the proteids. "It is impossible," declares
the School Medical Officer of the London County Council, "to cut
down proteids to the same extent in children as in adults without
serious results.... To set out, therefore, to relieve underfeeding by a
single meal a day, it is necessary to concentrate attention upon
proteids and fats ... and, therefore, a dinner for necessitous children
must be necessarily more costly than for those properly fed in
institutions or in their own homes. The want of clothing, which often
accompanies underfeeding, also necessitates more expensive
feeding in relief, the loss of bodily heat to be made up being greater
than in the case of the child in an industrial school or workhouse,

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Information Technology And Intellectual Property Law David I Bainbridge Editor

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Information Technology And Intellectual Property Law David I Bainbridge Editor

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 6

Slide 7

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Slide 78

Slide 79