Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Jane Lambert
500 followers
500 followers
About
Jane Lambert's posts

Post has attachment
Judging by the number of enquiries I get, this is the #1 IP issue for the creative industries. Sometimes I am asked by copyright owners what they can do about an infringement. Other times I have to advise someone who is accused of infringement.

It's a difficult topic which I shall explore at a seminar in Liverpool on 11 Oct between 16:00 and 18:00. Topics will include:
- an overview of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
- exceptions
- licensing express and implied
- fair dealing compared to fair use
- IPEC small claims track
- practical advice.
Space is limited and demand is likely to be heavy so reserve your place well in advance.


Post has attachment
Yesterday I explained how a trade mark owner could apply for the transfer of a generic top level domain name that is the same as, or confusingly similar to, his or her trade mark using the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy). Over two-thirds of all UDRP disputes are decided in favour of the complainant and less than 9% in favour of the respondent, Nevertheless, the UDRP represents the domain name holder's best hope of retaining his or her domain name and this article explains how he or she can do it.

Post has attachment
Yesterday I explained how a trade mark owner could apply for the transfer of a generic top level domain name that is the same as, or confusingly similar to, his or her trade mark using the UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy). Over two-thirds of all UDRP disputes are decided in favour of the complainant and less than 9% in favour of the respondent, Nevertheless, the UDRP represents the domain name holder's best hope of retaining his or her domain name and this article explains how he or she can do it.

Post has attachment
Some practical advice on how to recover a generic top level domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to your trade mark from a cybersquatter.

Post has attachment
Following on from my overview of Domain Name Disputes and my Domain Name Glossary I have uploaded a taxonomy of domain name dispute resolution policies.

Post has attachment
Following on from my overview of domain name dispute resolution I have added a glossary. More articles on the topic and an index to the ones I have already written shortly.

Post has attachment
For various reasons, ADR is not used as much in IP as in other areas of business dispute resolution, but one area in which it has been spectacularly successful is in tackling cybersquatting. According to @dndisputes. nearly 38,000 disputes involving generic top level domain registrations such as those ending in ".com", ".net" and ".org" have been resolved through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy since 1999. There must be many thousands more resolutions of disputes involving country code top level domains (that is to say domain names ending in two letter country codes such as ".uk", ".fr" or ".de"). This is an overview of the policies operated by ICANN, Nominet and EURID the EU domain name authority. In future articles I shall explain how to use these policies.

Post has attachment
I am very proud to have contributed the chapter on IP and Data Protection to "Doing Business after Brexit, A Practical Guide" which is edited by Helen Tse. The book consists of 13 chapters on everything from commercial contracts to tax. Helen is a partner at the Manchester office of Clarke Wilmott and a member of that firm's Brexit team.

Post has attachment
My case note on the appeal in Eli Lilly v Actavis which was handed down yesterday. This case is important that it struck the balance between the interests of patentees, competitors and the public much closer to the interests of the inventor than in previous cases. It also imported into our law considerations such as the "doctrine of equivalents" and "file wrapper estoppel" that are well known in the United States but had been unknown here.


Post has attachment
Ahmet v Javaid is the first decision by an Appointed Person in a design case. It is important for the following reasons. First, Mr Howe asserted that there is a public interest in removing from the register designs that should not be there so it is not open to litigants to settle disputes on terms that might conflict with that public interest. Secondly, he reaffirmed the principles by which evidence may be admitted on appeal, particularly when such evidence is aimed at discrediting the other party rather than addressing an issue in the case. Thirdly, if a hearing officer relies on evidence that has not been produced by either party, he or she has a duty to place it before the parties before considering it. Fourthly, each individual design is to be considered individually even if was registered pursuant to a multiple application. A hearing officer is not entitled to abstract general characteristics from the designs that were also part of the same multiple application and compare those general characteristics with the prior art. Finally, the appointed person reminded us of the what to look for when considering novelty and individual character.
Wait while more posts are being loaded