Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

High Court claims frequency – Music and Football dominate

Posted by on in Advantage Litigation News
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 59
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

Recent data compiled by law firm RPC sheds an interesting light on the claims trends in the High Court. The data, covering the 12 months up till 31st march 2017, shows that the most frequent claimants using the High Court were from the Music and Professional Football sectors.

PPL, originally established in 1934 and who govern and license public music broadcasting rules in the UK, were the most frequent litigators with 107 cases bought before the Court. The Performing Rights Society (PRS) who also license various music broadcasting channels were the third most litigious, with 27 cases submitted. In second place with 39 claims bought was the Football Association, with football broadcasters Sky and BT also bringing 14 claims between them. Back in 2013 the FA bought only 5 cases, the recent increase being a clear indicator of broadcasters taking a tougher line with individuals or businesses that are infringing their intellectual property rights around the broadcast of English football.

Both music and football broadcast rights holders are targeting pubs, restaurants and nightclubs that broadcast music and football without the relevant licensing authority in place, with such claims making up 23% of the PPL’s total during this period. Rounding out the top 5 High Court claimants list were Barclays Bank in fourth, and HM Revenue & Customs in fifth.

If you have a copyright or intellectual property claim, see if the team at Advantage can help. Contact us here, or call on 0800 160 1298

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • As the UK moves steadily closer to March 2019’s formal exit from the European Union, it is important that businesses across all sectors and of all sizes understand the impact that Brexit may have on their intellectual property and trademarks, and to make necessary changes now to help mitigate against possible legal action and litigation in future. SME’s (Small and Medium size Entities) make up over 98% of the UK’s 5.7m private sector businesses, employing over 16m people and representing £1.9 trillion in turnover p/a. The main issues for SME’s to consider and address in the run-up to Brexit from an IP and trademark perspective include: Contracts – the issue here is the effect that Brexit will have on current IP licences and agreements. Current licence wordings in use may include “the territory of the EU” – in this case, what... Read More

  • Over the years here at Advantage Litigation Solutions, we have looked at many claims and counter claims involving patents and patent infringements. With the increasing importance of intellectual property and brand identity in our globalised business world, effective legal protection of a patent is extremely important. Read More

  • Following a significant number of objections from within the legal profession in 2017, HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) chief executive Susan Acland-Hood has committed to re-introducing a range of pilot schemes to assess the impact of revised and more flexible court hours. This follows feedback on the original consultation in which it became clear that as desirable as it may be, the actual practicalities of extending court operating hours may mean the idea is abandoned altogether. Read More