IP Snapshot - April 2016

United Kingdom

Bringing you regular news of key developments in intellectual property law.


Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV, Playboy Enterprises International Inc., Britt Geertruida Dekker

The Advocate General opined that posting a link to unauthorised copyright material that is already available on the internet is not “communication to the public” and therefore there can be no copyright infringement. Whether or not the defendant knew that the copyright material was unauthorised is irrelevant. It remains to be seen whether the CJEU will follow this opinion.

For the full text of the decision, please click here

England and Wales Cricket Board Limited and Sky UK Limited v Tixdaq Limited and Fanatix Limited [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch)

The High Court has held that an App which allows users to post 8 second clips of sporting events filmed from TV broadcasts is not protected from a claim for copyright infringement by the defence of fair dealing for the purposes of reporting current events. The Defendants had clearly attempted to “push the legal boundaries” and, hence, this judgment provides some welcome guidance on the scope of the fair dealing defence: an area where there is little existing judicial guidance, particularly in the field of new forms of media delivery.

For the full text of the decision, please click here


PMS International Group Plc (Respondent) v Magmatic Limited (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 12, 9 March 2016

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that the respondent’s ride-on suitcase (the “Kiddee” cases) did not infringe the Community registered design for the “Trunki” ride-on suitcase, owned by Magmatic Ltd. The Court of Appeal was entitled to consider the issue of infringement as the High Court had erred in their assessment of the overall impression created by the Community registered design. This important judgment provides helpful guidance on the numerous issues for consideration when filing drawings in respect of registered designs. There are also obiter comments that indicate that the absence of ornamentation could be a feature of a Community registered design.

For the full text of the decision, please click here.


Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL [2016] C-99/15

The CJEU has confirmed that a party who claims compensation for intellectual property infringement on the basis of the amount of hypothetical royalties due under Article 13(1)(b) of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) is also permitted to claim compensation for any moral prejudice suffered, under Article 13(1)(a). This is based on a purposive interpretation of the Directive. The CJEU stated that the overall objective of the Directive is to obtain a high level of protection of intellectual property and the method of calculating damages must take into account the specific aspects of each case.

For the full text of the decision, please click here


Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft, Case C 179/15, 3 March 2016

The CJEU has held that online advertisements which referred to a company (Együd Garage) as an “authorised Mercedes-Benz” dealer did not constitute use of a trade mark by Együd Garage where such advertisements had been published without Együd Garage’s consent. Further, where an advertisement had originally been published online with the trade mark owner’s consent, and Együd Garage had subsequently requested (albeit without success) the website operator to remove the advertisement or reference to the mark, the continued publication after this request did not amount to use of the mark by Együd Garage.

For the full text of the decision, please click here